Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. 1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

    Polling numbers this far out are not especially meaningful. This is akin to the "way too early top 25 rankings" sports experts issue for the upcoming year. These are done 6 to 7 months before the start of the season. 

    Individual polls aren't meaningfull but multiple polls over time show trend lines and much can be gleaned from those. Which is why political parties pay close attention to them and pay for their own polling on top.

    The trends appear to be biden sinking a bit more, voters aren't happy with him at all, and trump has gained support but has hit a ceiling and isn't picking up new people but isn't losing old ones.

    Biden has to find a way to restore confidence or he'll lose, trump has to find a way to widen his appeal and climb above that ceiling or he'll lose. It's too close to say which is going to pull it off. There's probably more paths to victory for trump, but that doesn't mean he'll be able to walk them.


  2. 2 hours ago, robosmith said:

    Your posted evidence does not say that Harvard polls are unreliable.

    It says that Biden is leading based on the consensus of MULTIPLE POLLS. Duh.

    Thanks for that.

    It does show the harvard poll is inaccurate. 

    ANd it doesn't show biden is leading - biden cannot win with the numbers he has.

    remember - if you have trouble counting just take off your mittens

  3. 2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

    When a Presidential race is close, the incumbent has the advantage, since the people who are undecided tend to vote for what they are familiar with.  So the advantage definitely goes to Biden.

    the incumbent usually enjoys the advantage before the election starts. In this case, it looks like biden isn't getting that benefit for whatever reason.

    But the bigger concern for him has to be his approval trendline. He's trending much more like a preident who's been in for 7 years and people are tired of him. But it's just his first term.  Incumbents enjoy an advantage - right up until the public gets tired of them, and then it's a disadvantage. Which is why in canada most prime ministers get a second full term but very rarely a third.

    And for whatever reason biden's numbers look like there's voter fatigue already.

    As things stand right now, just under a year away from the election, biden looks like he's sinking a bit and trump looks like he's risen but now has hit a plateau and isn't advancing.  I would say based on the numbers and statistical history trump has a slight advantage.  But - it is FAR from decisive and if things remain the same it will definitely come down to the better campaign.

    The only other advantage potentially that trump has is that he'll have to win the nomination. That tends to generate a little excitement and he gets to be in the papers a lot and will probably enjoy a lot of victories and that makes him look good. But - that only goes so far.  He's going to have to widen his appeal, he's basically hit  a ceiling and he'll have a struggle if he can't go at least a little higher.

  4. 5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Me too, that's why I'd leave it up to finance and taxation experts to determine the appropriate share.


    All right - then give a specific example where the finance and taxation experts  indicate that they're not paying their fair share.


    As for examples, I'm quite comfortable taking the word of several commentators and journalists that it's happening

    Ahhh - so ... NOT experts.  Well - fair enough give an example of where a specific commentator and journalist said that they're not paying their fair share.  Hopefully it's more than just "They're not, honest' and we can see thier thinking.


    Go do your own research.

    I do. I already know you're very wrong, but lets see where you're getting your ideas from. Maybe somehow i missed something.  So go ahead and we'll take a look at it. If they exist.

  5. 55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. 'Equivalent' is subjective.  Capitalism DEMANDED a $13B subsidy in St. Thomas Ontario to create a factory there. 

    The market determines what 'equivilant' is if it's allowed to do it's job and it always comes down to equivilant value. While value may be subjective to people, whatever people consider value to be the market will adjust to that. 

    and no - Capitalism HATES that the gov't is subsidizing a factory.  HATES it.  If the factory was not worth being built for it's own merits then it shoudn't be built.

    Having said that most of the subsidy is in tax relief - and that's just promising not to take more of someone else's money for a change.  IT suggests our tax rates are too high for the value the gov't delivers.


    Was that equivalent exchange ? 

    No, that's gov't interference to win votes.  Nothing to do with capitalism.


    What's the equivalent exchange for a life-saving drug ?  It's infinite, bounded only by how much they can get.

    Yes and no.  That like most things will depend on supply and demand. If people pay an infinite price for it then guaranteed someone else will develop it as well and sell it competatively. Then prices come down. That's how the market works.  It tends to seek to balance supply and demand at an optimal point.

    Some regulation is necessary because otherwise it teeter totters a lot but other than that the market is VERY effective in making sure theres  a bigger supply of that drug pretty quick,



    3. Sometimes I'm a little predatory, Red-A-Tory... Red Tory...

    Reddish orange some might say :)  

  6. 1 hour ago, eyeball said:

    (FIFY) Because governments always tilt things in their favour so they don't have pay their fair share. Why do so many average Conservatives and Liberals like yourself keep encouraging this anyway?

    If anything the gov't tends to overpay.  Whats a sepecific example of the gov't tilting things in it's favor to pay less than it's fair share an how are you calculating it's fair share in that case?

    I suspect you might have trouble answering that :)

  7. 9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Here's the map from YOUR LINK showing Biden in the lead 241 to 235 LMAO:


    But it doesn't.  It show  that neither side is winning decisively, biden doesn't have enough to win and neither does trump - they're about neck and neck with 62 still in the air.

    The best you can say out of that is that nobody is winning yet and either could win.

    You're really not good at counting are you

  8. 7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Biden leads Trump

    • Updated: Dec. 05, 2023, 7:49 a.m.|
    • Published: Dec. 05, 2023, 7:44 a.m.

    Esp among LIKELY VOTERS.


    Did you need me to explain why that's desperate? :)   You can figure it out right?

    As we can see at the aggregators sites:


    Biden is either tied with or behind trump.

    Further biden's disapproval rating is climbing.

    You can lie do yourself all you like but it's pretty clear that at this moment in time turmp is a nose ahead of biden.


  9. 35 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

    There was absolutely no evidence of Ballot Box stuffing. In fact, Dominion Voting Machines, a Canadian company, was awarded the largest monetary legal settlement in American history, against FOX News, for their false claims against them.


    Yeah yeah yeah bullshit bullshit bullshit.

    In fact we know there was illegal voting - that DID happen. It happens every election. what you MEAN to say is there was not significant evidence of 'substantial' fraud which would have changed the outcome of the election. BUT - there is plenty of evidence that such could have happened without leaving significant evidence and unfortunately there were a few incidents which left room for doubt.

    Which is why i harp on the need for the process to be seen to be abuse proof. Whether it's being abused or not

    And if you're going to pretend differently i'll call you a liar to your face.  It IS possible that there was significant fraud.

    Do i believe there was? nooooo - I think biden won the election.  But - there's more than enough room for doubt the way it was done to fuel the deniers.


    Meanwhile, Trump refused to concede office, and tried to subvert democracy by staging an insurrection.

    Yeah, not really tho. I  know you guys love to call it an 'insurrection' but not really - a couple hundred unarmed protesters storming a building is not an 'insurrection', if anything they thought they were fighting back against an 'insurrection'. I'll give you that trump should have conceded but at the same time hillary spent every year after her loss right up till today demanding that trump was an illegitimate president. So...


    So we can once again look forward to an armed revolt if Trump loses the election.  Sadly, I think it may be successful the second time around.

    Then you're a fool. 

    First - the "first time" wasn't armed. In a nation with more firearms per capita than any other, they didn't bring any guns.

    Second - there's no actual evidence that trump 'oganized' anything. At best he knowingly let it play out.

    third - there was ZERO -  ZERO chance of that succeeding in overthrowing the gov't the slightest and that's precisely the chances of it succeeding if it happens again.

    You people are every single bit as self deluding as the trump supporters in the states and then a bit.  And i noticed you didn't address the 4 years of "russian collusion" that turned out to be utterly false.  4 Years of "trump isn't legit" and now you belly ache when the other side pulls exactly the same crap with the same level of evidence.


  10. 7 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

    It will be a sad day for democracy, and the Western World in general, if Trump were re-elected.



    The irony of that clearly escapes you :)   " Its a sad day for democracy if a leader is elected by the people".  Whooo kaaaayy........

    Reminds me of that quote from one us politician back in the day who said "Democracy is far too important to leave to the people' :) 

    Any time an election is freely and fairly fought and won it's a victory for democracy no matter who wins. The problem is the americans always decide the other side cheated, no matter which side wins the other side believes that.  Trump wins - russian collusion.  Biden wins - ballot box stuffing.  It goes back forever. They've done polls on this.

    I have sympathy for the americans -  in a choice between biden and trump you have no really awesome options. Trump does far better on the economy and general governance but he's very divisive, prone to 3 am tweets that are not well thought out and have real impacts, entirely fuelled by spite, and all that causes problems.

    Biden is just plain useless. A disaster on the long term economy, utterly incapable of having a cohesive plan for the country. a foreign relations mess, generally not the friend of good governance. But he tweets less.

    IF we're being honest trump is probably the best shot.  he can't stay in for more than 4 years, the economy will probably do well under him, and maybe that will give the dems and the republicans a chance to pause and think about what they're putting forward as candidates.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  11. 25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

    So, Palestine and Palestinians have no right to exist either and Israel has the right to tell them where they can live??


    The problem is they don't want to co-exist. IF they were open to the idea we would have seen a two state solution ages ago - israel's willing to consider it.

    And then there could be peace no problem. If both sides wanted to co exist, it would start off tense with various frictions and imperfect solutions, and within a generation it would be completely normal, barriers and restrictions would evaporate and life would go on.

    But - that's not how gaza wants it. So - now it's like the highlander. There can be only one.  :)   And so israel should deny Palestine the right to exist and tell them where they can live. Which is always what happens when two nations go to war and one loses.

  12. 29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    One would think, after the dismal performance of the Biden administration and the semi-absent mentality of the POTUS and the VP, that the Democrats would be destroyed in the next election. But that's simply not so.

    If Trump is going to be the Republican candidate, he's going to have to learn to fermer la bouche at times. Just smile and say nothing. Don't make up nick-names for people...don't make exaggerated commentaries...and DO NOT continue suggesting that he'll go after on the FBI and DOJ. Just do it after the election. Immediately after the election.

    LOL - well all this is true.  Trump is charasmatic in his way but he doesn't really know how to run a solid campaign. A campaign is not just getting the crowd in front of you to laugh or clap.  People aren't just deciding if the like you.

    THe only reason he won in 2016 was clinton is even WORSE at campaigning - truly a horrible campaign.  So trump's campaign was more effective in comparison. But you noticed that whomever the media focused on went down in the polls - in other words each time one of them spoke and got the spotlight they sunk, and then the other would do it, then back to the first and it was this weird race to the bottom where you got the sensation that if either stopped talking they'd win by default :)  

    Which is basically exactly what happened with biden in 2020 - he cried covid and hid in his basement for almost the whole campaign.  And trump talked himself out of a presidency.

    This time trump has to learn to paint a picture, he's got to give people something solid to vote for more like he did with 'make America great again' and focus on his vision, not calling people 'sleepy joe' and such.

    • Like 1
  13. 5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    CORRECTION: The Palestinians living in Gaza, ELECTED Hamas. They are ALL combatants.


    Well - they're not ALL 'combatants' - just because you voted for a war doesn't mean you're a fighter.

     But - that doesn't mean all the civillians are 'civillians' either. Many women and children are being used to ferry weapons and ammo to the soldiers and to carry messages etc etc.  Those people are actively involved in the war and are fair game.  But of course - if a woman pushing a pram full of ammo gets hit by israeli fire they'll quickly clean up the ammo and start crying for the cameras about how this innocent woman got shot for no reason.

    • Like 1
  14. 10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

    Google makes money from that in many ways.

    The news outlets make money when google links their stories. The people go to that website and the news outlet derives a benefit.

    Sounds like you're being a bit of a hypocrite.  If google displays any of their content and makes money they bad must pay, if google directs people to the media outlet and the media outlet makes money (they all sell ads on their pages) then it should be free. 


  15. 45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

    Yes it does the WEF “issue” is a right wing conspiracy theory about “globalists elites” trying to take over the world and free trade/globalism is a core part of that conspiracy

    And?  That's got crap all to do with actual trade. If it makes some people feel better that a PP gov't won't participate in WEF so be it but that's got squat to do with actual trade.  Unless you think the rumours are true. 

    Put it another way - what  trade would we have done if they did go, and isn't being done as a result? nothing.


    That’s a made-up rule.


    All rules are made up. That was a dumb thing to say.  On top of which it's not a rule. It is however accepted to be the way it is. If we're putting in money then the work should go to our people. They won't go to jail for giving the work away but people will remember it.



    Where precisely is the guarantee that Pierre Poillievre won’t secretly hire foreign temp workers for his own business?

    he can't - he doesn't have a business :)   But if he starts one and if the gov't gives him 15 billion dollars to do so, he better be able to answer that question. 

    And the 'proof' would be putting it in the agreement for the money that he not hire foreign workers.



    Where is the precisely is the guarantee that you’re not a drug dealer?  The point being you’re asking for proof of a negative.

    You're being deliberately stupid at this point i take it.  You honestly believe it's not possible to sign a contract as part of the deal to turn over 15 billion dollars which says 'no foreign labour'? You really think that couldn't be done? Utterly impossible?

    Ok there sparky.


    There’s no reason to believe there would be any significant number of foreign workers beyond those they’ve announced who will be setting up the equipment. I don’t even think PP has challenged that. 

    There is every reason.  If a group does something once it's reasonable to assume they'll do it again.

    Trudeau could easily have prevented that by including a 'canadian workers' clause in the contract.


    It’s clear that the explanation provided is reasonable and the alternative is unreasonable.

    It is in no way clear at all.

    What's clear is that you care more about supporting justin than you do facts or canadian workers.

    Despite your claims to the contrary - it would have been quite easy to include a canadian worker clause. If they absolutely needed their own people - which i don't believe they do in the slightest - then you can build that into the contract and limit future abuses.


  16. 25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

    Simple. Google takes news outlet’s product for free and then sells it for profit to their advertisers. Do you really think that’s fair?

    In any other aspect of life that is mot allowed.


    So just to clarify - does that mean that every time a news outlet comes up on a google search they should have to pay google money? I mean they're getting that advert for free

  17. 34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Yet still vast and wide compared to your's - and I admit I'm certainly no expert.

    LOL - sure kid :)  You're a legend in your own mind ;)



    Note how much effort you put into denying the importance of addressing NIMBYISM for example.

    You mean none? I didn't deny nimbyism at all.


    I expect you'll be denying you ever did that at all given Poilievre's awareness of the need to act assertively is now in your face.

    Uhhh - what?   I didn't mention nimbyism and Pollievre's need to act assertively doesn't change that in the slightest.


    'Doh....kay' is how you hard-boiled right-wing hacks always roll.

    Uh huh.  You...  you doin' ok there big guy?


    That said, fixing the housing crisis will still remain such a difficult task that Poilievre will have no choice but to either throw hundreds of billions of tax dollars at building social housing or whine about the mess he inherited. Doesn't take much acumen to see that'll be his go-to excuse and especially your's.

    Uh huh.

    Well - in fact he'll probably just fix it. It's not that hard to do. He's off to a good start but i think there's a couple of key pieces to add to it, and he can buy himself some time by reducing immigration for a  while (which he will never say before an election)

    Like i say, permanently fixing the mess your buddy trudeau has made will take time.  But he can certainly make things better and start down that path. Stop rents and homes rising, substantially increase constsruction, let wages start to catch up to home prices. Four years later things are a little better, four more years and they're better still.

  18. 37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

    I don't think so. 

    Have you ever seen a football team (or whatever) leading comfortably in a game, and then lose a couple of key players to injury. Extenuating circumstances can quickly turn the tide of a contest. The lesser team can win. I think that's very much what happened in 2016. Extenuating circumstances really added up. The Russian social media campaign, the hack and leak. Comey's October surprise was probably the backbreaker. A comfortable lead became a dead heat and tipped the other way by the smallest of margins. 

    But, to be fair, on paper Trump shouldn't have even been remotely viable. A reality TV star with no political experience, no governing experience, a spotty business record and TONS of character baggage? I don't think that's anyone's idea of a superior candidate. It should never have been close enough to tilt under any circumstance. He was certainly overperforming. It was Hillary's race to lose, and, with the help of some extenuating circumstances, she lost it. 


    Oh my GOD - that is truly one of the most pathetic excuse efforts i've seen in ages :)

    Its' not her illegal activites with mail servers etc, it's not bengazi or her hubby raping people and her covering it up, it's not a truly horrible campaign effort to begin with...  she was just too tired to win.

    Can't the dems get their candidates a red bull or something?  Or find someone under 80?

    • Haha 1
  • Create New...