Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,800
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Well, seems like both Federal and Provincial were involved in this and an independent committee disagrees with the scientist too. They should have at least kept the investigation open, though, from the sounds of it.
  2. 1. I did a search on some keywords to remind myself of people's positions. I found four posts from you that talked about what you think would happen. I didn't remember anything beyond that so that's why I did the search. I didn't see anything in there but immigration which is why I asked you to clarify. Thanks. 2. 4. You accuse me of struggling because I don't remember some specific post you made a year ago? And yet you keep saying I like Trudeau despite multiple corrections. That seems like a contradiction. 3. Agreed and I hope He's successful . 5. I expect some cuts but not substantial. I think the max I would expect would be 10%. Do you care to put a number out there? Please understand that I'm not arguing with you at all on here, since we are only predicting things. There's no argument to be made until the facts come down in a couple of years.
  3. Great post. The root of the problem is a theme of coddling and perpetual affirmation that tells folks they're never wrong. You see many posts on here (RePolitics - which is ostensibly a forum for better dialogue) delegitimizing entire viewpoints and cultures rather than talking about solutions. It's a symptom of politics' degeneration into angertainment and insult sports.
  4. Ok, how much do you think he'll cut immigration by? I'm only about 50% sure of my own prediction btw...
  5. Cbc cuts, attrition, 4 to 5% spending cuts... . Yes, I remember that list. You actually said that it wasn't going to be that hard, just that Trudeau was too stupid to do it. Which is it?
  6. The key word is significantly. Poilievre is a landlord so he doesn't want to pop the bubble...
  7. I don't really think he will, no. The thinking of most here, including you, seems to be that aside from gutting the CBC, there won't be major changes. Do you?
  8. Do you think Poilievre will make significant changes to foreign aid or immigration?
  9. 1. The resource equalization formula has been a fight for a long time in Chicago. So the money isn't distributed equally. 2. That's a social problem. As for the black kids assertion, I'm not going to go there because it's usually a fallacy ridden and flawed argument that's not interesting or productive. ---- While I'm sympathetic to the law and order response to our current situation, the fact is we're not in the 1950s... We have a lot more ways to look at things.... A lot more stakeholders.... More opinions etc. And the whole world is different. Nostalgic pining for a previous era tends to satisfy online forum entertainment needs, and doesn't usually get close to talking about real problems. My opinion... The real problem in the world, if you want to get simple about it, is poverty and lack of money. If you have a solution to that one, I'm all ears.
  10. From what I've read the schools are under funded. Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be working on making things better.
  11. Those don't seem to be the biggest expenses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
  12. We've heard that assertion before but it's not even provable, or discernable from general xenophobia. Immigrants need to come from countries with people who want come here, otherwise we won't get enough.
  13. General Michael Poilievre won't be able to fix [many of] our problems - Often wrong replies that he'can fix many things. eyeball Poilievre will need to "scrape off the Chuds" Moonbox Poilievre will slowly pivot to mainstream cdnfox I suspect Poilievre will do lots of amazing things, cut the CBC and improve the civil service via attrition and automation - very easy to look good almost immediately
  14. There's almost no way there were no Republicans based on pure chance. And so maybe objectivity is still a thing.
  15. Yeah, maybe. I don't think I ever denied that. Does Trump deserve it ? Would he do the same if he had the chance ? This is why I'm staying away from the whole moral angle. If politics is a cesspool don't expect me to show up with my white gloves and a pack of sani-wipes...
  16. I wanted to take a snapshot of Forum Members' expectations of Poilievre before we get close to the election. This should be interesting to assess what our little "public" goes through, in the arc of the political life of a leader from initial fascination to disappointment and final goodbyes. My take on it is that Trudeau's popularity is so low as to cause a strategic problem for the Conservatives, ie. how to keep the status quo for the long time before an election. In all likelihood, Poilievre will have to modify his positions if/when he governs. Let's see what people have said.
  17. Ok - so a civil war would be an approach to removing this idea ? Kind of like happened with Slavery... Is that a good analogy ?
  18. Curious about this: what are some other bad ideas democracy faced in the past and how were they handled by our system of public discussion ? How is this similar/different ? Will it go away one day ?
  19. Might as well get ahead of it. King Obama ? I'm sure President Biden can sign an executive order to that effect.
  20. Objectivity is impossible, therefore it is the enemy. Good government can't come from laws and institutions now - it can only come from the one true leader that you trust implicitly. This is where we are with this.
  21. Okay but what was that intent? What were the other crimes? Don't get me wrong... I don't feel sorry for the guy. But this might be a whole pile of wrongs attempting to make it right. And it's not like New York State is above retribution right?
  22. Yeah, but you're talking about most people, who were not in the courtroom and did not see all the evidence presented. I think you're second-guessing them. I already posted some good grounds for debate, but I don't know that his defense team brought any of that up. I believe Cohen, but I also think New York is corrupt
  23. Many of the Trump fanatics are very challenged in looking at things like legal cases. Logically I mean. Basically they are tribal in nature, so they are bad at analysis and they just look at things like loyalty, my country right or wrong etc For people who are looking for actual things about this case that might be seen as unfair to Trump, have a read of this. https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/05/07/law-professor-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/ There may be enough here to get him off on appeal, but his lawy ers don't see m competent enough to go there. The main thing I see is that the misdemeanor part was outside the statute of limitations, and that's necessary to prove the stronger charge.
  24. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/metro-area/new-york-city-metro-area/party-affiliation/ Based on this, there's a .09% chance the jury was all Democrats. As such, a single, independent non-democrat looking at the evidence could have hung the jury.
×
×
  • Create New...