CdnFox

You're on the right track I think. But another way to look at it is the disassociation of common values. And I'm not just talking religion or moral or ethical values per se For the most part countries are founded based on a shared ethnicity. And I'm not talking about race I'm talking about a common language, a common understanding of how things work, a common set of ethical beliefs and expectations and in general agreement about what is appropriate and make sense and what isn't and doesn't That allows everybody to examine issues from a point of common reference. As an example our forefathers all agreed that murder is bad, now with that in mind they could have conversations about what an appropriate punishment would be But if one person thinks murder is good and one person thinks murder is bad there is no common framework for them to have any reasonable discussion about what is appropriate or not appropriate for punishment. There's no possible way to arrive at a consensus because there's a fundamental difference in the belief system that provides a common frame It would be like if you spoke french and I spoke English, without a common agreed upon language it would be very difficult for us to have a conversation because there's no common structure that we could use to facilitate that That's basically where America and several other countries are at the moment. There is no common landing or principles upon which to base a conversation. There is no longer an Overton window, there is now an Overton kaleidoscope which means it's impossible to have a clear picture of things I don't really know if there's any coming back from that to be honest

Well they can be, but they don't have to be. But one way or another the driving philosophy has to be clear in the mind of the government taking action And they should be clear with the public as to what their intent is. Randomly switching back and forth between the three is the worst of all possible options

And with that opening you expect anyone to give a crap? Sounds like these guys are a legitimately justified and breaking any rule necessary to protect themselves against hate-filled bigots like you

Me? I didn't run in any election, did you get confused again? LOL More people still liked the conservatives than the liberals so you were wrong and I was right. So while the conservatives may have lost the election, you're the loser here Gotcha kid

You mean it had ruptured and they needed a new 'order' to fix it? Seems i've heard something like that recently Joking aside that's very true. and the 'grow, raise or punt" question is one that's come up many times in our history, and we' haven't always answered it well. we seem to be going with punt this time, and i'm not happy about what that's going to mean for the next gen.

When you say "we" you mean the voices in your head right? I don't think PP has been particularly mean to palestinians has he? Would that be the same NDP that spent the last 4 years propping up the liberals? Or the same green party that imploded and destroyed itself the moment Lizzie may left? well... there you go kid

That is certainly true. The sheer volume of crocodile tears would be enough to open a boot factory. But no surprise there, we've seen often enough that the left is fine with something while they do it yet scream and gnash teeth and rend garments the moment someone else does it.

I think that's kind of hard to say. I think in the short term we'll see expansion but right now they're only real in would be through EVS. There's still some market growth available to them around the world with EVS but as we have seen across North America and many other jurisdictions there are limits to how big a piece of the pie Ev's can take with the tech we have today. So i think they'll continue to expand over the short term (lets say 5 to 10 years or so) but i think that we can't say much beyond that. Who knows what the next tech will be and whether they'll be positioned for it. It may be an interesting double edged sword for them. Right now they push their weight around because they can deny access to their market, but if they are too successful with car sales and their economy comes to depend on it substantially then others may suddenly have a powerful bargaining chip if they threaten future tariffs or restrictions.

Nothing emotional about it, other than the humor I get watching you twist and turn desperately trying to avoid the crippling truth: You're a broken little man Truth be told about 80% of my posts are one-liners back to Exflyer laughing at him when he posts 10 pages of the same post or ass porn trying desperately to convince people this proves he's an adult Only a couple of lines needed

Two things can be true

Sure, lets see Party Liberal Conservative Popular vote 6,018,728 6,239,227 Wow, so i was right! They DID win the popular vote in 2019 just like i said! You were wrong. But you're used to that HOw about the next election? Popular vote 5,556,629 5,747,410 OH NO!! AGAIN!!!!! SO, in the last 4 elections the CPC has won the most votes 2 of them. So looks like you were wrong AGAIN big guy LOLOL

Are you thinking of suing him for copyright infringement?

Well the other option is to grow the economy. If the economy is growing substantially faster than the population, then government revenue increases appropriately. It reduces the need for cuts The problem is I don't really see either party putting forward genius ideas right now. The democrats were absolutely horrible at substantially growing the economy in the way that it needed. I have little faith that trump's tariff plan will result in substantial growth either, and as of the moment the best you can say is that it's not tanking the economy the way some thought it would or might. It's producing 'ok' or 'decent' growth, but not what's needed given the deficit. Of course it's still early days and the full benefits if any will take a few years to show up. But that really has to be the focus. If Americans want to keep the benefits they have without being taxed into oblivion like Venezuela then they need to focus on improving the economy and the output and production and wages it generates.

No, the two elections previous to this last one saw the CPC get more votes than the libs. Sooo that kind of blew that idea out the window for you didn't it LOL You don't have much luck with thinking do you.

But the deeper problem is that the definition of affordability being used by officials no longer matches the definition used by the public. That mismatch is the engine of epistemic fragmentation. Epistemic fragmentation thrives in the space between “technically true” and “socially false” A government can say something that is: technically true according to outdated metrics socially false according to lived experience This is the exact kind of contradiction that fractures a society’s shared reality. One group hears the technical truth and trusts it. Another group sees the social falsehood and rejects it. Now you have two incompatible realities. one side believes the metrics define reality the other believes lived experience defines reality Each side thinks the other is being dishonest. This is why epistemic fragmentation is so corrosive: it makes even basic questions about truth impossible to resolve. 6. A more precise way to phrase the situation Instead of “the government is lying,” a more accurate description is: “The government is using metrics that no longer capture the economic reality people are living, and presenting those metrics as if they do.” That’s not the same as intentional deception, but it produces the same social consequences as if it were. what happens when a government than makes policy decisions based on outdated metrics and not lived reality When a government makes policy decisions based on metrics that no longer reflect lived reality, the consequences are serious — not because of partisan motives, but because the system becomes misaligned with the society it’s supposed to govern. This is a structural problem, not a personality problem, and it’s something political scientists, economists, and sociologists have been warning about for years. The political system becomes unresponsive A government using outdated metrics will think: “Our policies are working.” “People are doing better.” “The economy is strong.” Meanwhile, citizens are experiencing: rising debt food insecurity unaffordable housing stagnant wages declining quality of life This mismatch makes the system feel unresponsive, even illegitimate. Freeland called it a "vibecession", where peoples real world experiences gave them the 'vibe' of a recession because they were worse off but the cherry picked gov't indicators said they were doing great and were very happy Like it was the people's fault they felt differently than the gov't said they did.

I have no idea, I don't live in clown world the way you do. But on the earth it's entirely spasmodic. The moment you realize you're losing you have this bizarre brain spasm and blame my postcount And try and make an argument that your own stupidity is somehow a result of that. It's like you can't even control yourself, I mentioned it's coming and you do it anyway because it's completely a compulsive mental health issue for you Maybe you should spend less time in this clown world of yours and more time with your therapist

LOL well that's excatly the kind of freak out and spasmodic response you'd expect from someone suffering from Insecurity and Social Comparison, Attachment Issues and Anxiety and Compulson Looks like the AI had you nailed You gonna be ok little guy? Do you need me to find you a safe space and a puppy? LOL which is why you follow me around desperately obsessing over my post count and frantically trying to look slightly less stupid than you are? Kid, you post to me more than almost anyone else on this forum. You care deeply about why i say and constantly make a fool of yourself arguing it. Although it looks like goddess is beating you up pretty good these days too So lots of people here care about what I say in my opinion, you as well apparently. But almost everybody here at universally thinks you're a twat

There's a lot of problems with the whole concept. It's very hard to be an ally of China AND the US at the same time. Doing business with china is one thing but marrying them politically as the libs seem to be doing is not just a bad idea, it's dangerous to world stability and safety No, the Chinese didn't ask him to do that. The owners of Nexen asked him to do that The Chinese got no saying it whatsoever But I do appreciate you taking the time to both prove my point and demonstrate your ignorance all in one felt swoop

Aewww muffin You, whom everyone is laughing at, finally found a friend, whom everyone is ALSO laughing at It's nice to see the "Fox made me cry" fanclub getting together again It really isn't, unless your purpose is to distract from the issue at hand. Harper never took instructions from china, that's for sure. Harper had the Dalai Lama visit for god's sake. Now we're taking instruction from china. So did you have an opinion on whether or not that was okay or are you going to continue to dodge the issue like a little biatch because you know that this is shameful behavior from the liberals

When exactly did harper ever allow them to dictate any terms to him? Harper did business with china. He didn't sell our democracy to china. Carney is. Big difference. Can you tell me why you're ok with selling our sovereignty to china?

Not at all. That was entirely factual. In fact I've commented on it dozens of times. You are absolutely obsessed with my post count You mention it constantly as an excuse for YOUR behavior, Here's what else it says about you Here is what psychological and social studies suggest about such behavior: Insecurity and Social Comparison: Constant monitoring of a person's posts is often a sign of using social media to compare oneself to others. This behavior can be rooted in low self-esteem, where the individual is checking to see if they are keeping up with, or being left behind by, the person they are watching. A "Confirmation Bias" Loop: Often, someone monitors a post count to find evidence that supports an existing, shaky belief (e.g., "they are doing better than me," or "they are trying to get attention"). Attachment Issues (Limerence): If the obsession is focused on one specific person (a "target"), it may be a sign of limerence—a state of infatuation or obsession where the watcher interprets every post as a message or sign of acknowledgment. Digital Stalking Behaviour: Intense, repeated monitoring of social media profiles can cross into, or result in, cyberstalking. This often indicates a desire for control or a distorted attempt at maintaining a connection with someone who is no longer actively in their life. Anxiety and Compulsion: The need to check post counts can be a compulsive behavior, similar to OCD or a general anxiety disorder, where the individual feels a temporary reduction in anxiety by confirming their beliefs, which then fuels the cycle again. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

It actually gets worse for him when you talk about Metro Vancouver. That was his original premise, the idea that in Metro Vancouver you couldn't buy a home in 2015 on an average income And in fact there were lots of places in Metro Vancouver that you could buy a home in 2015 on an average income. I mean we've already done this to death, I posted the average incomes, I posted the average pricing in Vancouver and in Greater Vancouver and even the lower mainland and went through all the numbers and a young couple starting out looking to raise a family could definitiely purchase a townhome more than suitable for that and they would have paid less for their food and other expenses as a percent of their income than the average today. I mean there's just no doubt. In 2015 Vancouver was expensive but still affordable. Today it isn't A more interesting question is why is he so emotionally invested in this that he spent six pages arguing something when proof has been provided by multiple people but he's wrong Here's the numbers again a slightly differnet way to hope he gets it Median Couple Family Income (with children): $96,888 The benchmark price for a townhouse was about 500,000 dollars The house is considered affordable if it's 30% of your pre-tax income. That would be 2,422.2 That is the definition of affordable. So the mortgage on that home would be $2,127.84 per mnth based on the interest rates of the day. So the average family with children in the lower mainland could definitely afford a nice townhouse with 3 bedrooms in a nice part of town. AND they'd have paid less for their car, their food, and a bunch of other things as a percentage of their income. Vancouver was expensive but affordable. Mortgage Calculator - Canada.ca What is considered an affordable percentage of your income to pay for housing in Canada - Google Search What was the average selling price for a townhouse in greater Vancouver 2015 - Google Search What was the median family income in Metro vancouver in 2015 - Google Search I've proved and shown everything and so have others. And each one of the facts and figures you've tried to present was shown to be inaccurate or irrelevant. You think if people can't afford a detached mansion in British Properties Vancouver wasn't affordable You can go look to my post to westcan man, provided all the numbers again from a slightly different angle. Originally I posted the numbers to you for a young couple starting out, this time I went with a family with children. Still affordable

Wow, what a really well thought out and intellectually stimulating reply Are you still in grade school or something? "Obsessing over someone's post count online often indicates a high level of insecurity, social anxiety, or a need for validation, reflecting a tendency to measure personal worth—or the worth of others—through visible digital metrics rather than authentic connection. Such behavior can be a form of "orbiting" or social media stalking, where the person is looking for clues to confirm their own beliefs, anxieties, or suspicions about someone else's life" LOL, hey kid, AI says you're broken

It's been that way for years now. Occasionally he would engage in actual debate in the past but it always ended badly for him. Like many on the left he tends to start with an answer and try and work his way back to a question and very frequently winds up posting proof that he's wrong by accident. It just brings nothing to the table. I don't even know why he's here, honestly whenever he insults somebody he tends to get insulted even worse back and just looks silly It's like that old joke where the bear says to the hunter "you're not coming here for the hunting any more are you"