segnosaur

Keep in mind that even if the death penalty existed, Homolka would not have been affected by it. She got out of jail early because the police and courts messed up and offered her a sweetheart deal. That wouldn't have changed even if execution was an option.

First of all, keep in mind that those are polled negatives, which includes (I assume) criticisms against Hillary that are not valid. Secondly, even if her negatives were "nearly as bad", that still suggest she is still the better candidate. I don't believe you. Time and time again, when Trump has been criticized, you have rushed in to try to defend him, usually with garbage arguments. Yet you have never made any effort to similarly defend Clinton when there have been B.S. claims against her. You have exhibited all the traits of a Trump supporter. Gee.. I wonder why anyone would get the idea that Trump supporters are racists... http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/11/confederate-flag-donald-trumps-flies-florida-rally.html(Confederate flag at Trump Rally) After all, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of racism or other bigotry at Trump rallies. http://www.people.com/article/trump-supporters-racist-sexist-rallies-nyt-video(video showing Trump supporters shouting racist things) And his supporters here seem to be a pretty decent group of people too. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25455-donald-vs-hillary/page-58#entry1183812(Trump supporter from here giving an anti-semetic post) And Trump has certainly done nothing to encourage such attitudes. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/(Trump calls for ban of Muslim travel to US) He's gone though so much effort to show himself to be completely non-racist. http://time.com/4392387/donald-trump-star-of-david-tweet-8chan-pol/(Trump campaign sends tweet with image originating from racist source) And none of the people he's associated with have shown any sign of bigotry either. http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/(Trump running mate Pence with anti-gay policies) http://forward.com/news/national/348960/donald-trump-jr-retweets-the-neo-nazi-movements-favorite-academic/(Trump Jr. retweets from racists source) In case you didn't clue in, I was being sarcastic. You may object to the characterization of Trump supporters as being racist and idiots as being "intellectually lazy", and perhaps it is. But its one case where being lazy also means being accurate. Kind of like saying "The sky is blue" is intellectually lazy. By the way, I should also point out that in my earlier post, I didn't say all of Trump's supporters were racists. I said most (i.e. not all) of his supporters were either racists, idiots, or religious spam-bots. It is certainly possible that there are intelligent people out there who support Trump for well thought out, rational reasons. Sadly, those people seem to be rather like bigfoot or UFOs... they may exist but we haven't seen any evidence yet.

I doubt any politician ever in the history of the world has ever gone though their career without saying at least one falsehood. Even Bernie Sanders (who's been elevated as a saint by some) has some of his statements rated as 'false' by politifact. Remember, these candidates are under a microscope, with every public statement they make analyzed by the media and their opponents. Once you accept that all candidates have made at least some false statements, then you can properly judge them according to the number and type of lies. Actually, I don't think a Candidate's honesty alone does justify a vote. It is a factor, but it is not the only one. Even if Drumph were 100% honest and never said anything that was factually incorrect, I still don't think he should be president, based on many factors: - His economic policies... his protectionist attitude (which would hurt American exports) and harm both the U.S. and global economy, his plan of eliminating banking reforms (which would bring the U.S. back to the time right before the economic meltdown of 2008) and his tax plans (which would give large benefits to the upper class.) He's even suggested defaulting on US Debt, which would probably crash the global economy - His social policies. Remember, he's the guy who suggested jailing women who have abortions, and who wants to curtail first amendment rights. And while he talked about "protecting LGBTQ" people, he also appointed Pence as his running mate, a man who favors "Pray-away the gay" - His choice of advisors... picking Ailes (who is in trouble for sexual harassment) and Bannon (extreme right wing) to help with his campaign. Not to mention his selection of economic advisors, which were very limited in government experience. I'd rather not have someone in the white house who makes such poor selections for people to surround himself with - His temperment... from his giving childish names to his opponents, to his posting of unflattering pictures of his opponent's wives in the primaries, to his failure to his childish "I'm not going to endorse Ryan". He wants to be president... such activities are more in tune with those of a schoolyard bully than they are of a man who needs to deal with a country with many opposing viewpoints, and a world with dozens of countries and hundreds of cultures, all of which he will need to consider. - The racism inherent in his campaign, from both Trump and those connected to his campaign... his "Mexican Rapist" comment, his "biased Mexican Judge" comment, the fact that they posted images taken from a neo-Nazi source - His personal history... he's built his reputation in part on his business reputation. But when you look at his record, he's actually done rather poorly... he inherited much of his wealth, and has left behind a string of bankruptcies and failed businesses. Hillary has been criticized for some of her actions as Secretary of State, but Trump seems to be a bigger failure at the one thing he is supposedly good at. That's not the type of person I want influencing the economy as president - He may have donated to NAMBLA. I don't believe it myself, but many people are talking about it. I don't want a president who has donated to NAMBLA, do you? So yeah, even if you ignore honesty as a factor in the election, there are still plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump.

You see, that's the type of stupidity that really highlights the intellectual dishonesty of Trump supporters. I do not recall seeing one person claim Hillary is flawless. Nobody here has said she has never lied. Nobody here has said there wasn't an issue with her handling of emails. Our claim has always been "She has flaws, but whatever flaws she has are far outweighed by Trump's". Yet here you are, claiming that we are "ignoring her flaws". I also think its extremely hypocritical for you to claim we are 'ignoring her flaws' when I've seen at least one of the pro-Trump supporters claim he "tells it like it is". Trump doesn't. he lies. More than Hillary. So the next time someone claims Trump "Tells it like it is", are you going to chastise them?

Well, consider the quality of Trump supporters. the majority fit into one of 3 categories:: - Some are neo-Nazi supporters/racists - Some are religious spam-bots - some seem to lack basic knowledge. I wonder if we can find people like that on this forum! Such people are unethical themselves. so these people supporting someone else who's unethical isn't that far fetched.

Which of course is in the past. Remember what I said? They've been sacrificing the future in hopes of gaining a little power now. They may have some success in the next few elections (partly due to gerrymandering) but as demographics shift more and more, and minority voters make up a bigger part of the electorate, the Republican ability to hold on to congress will probably start to diminish. After all, what do the republicans have to offer black and latino voters other than tax cuts (that most won't get), guns (that seem to be causing more problems), and a memory about how the republicans tried to disenfranchise huge segments of the minority population.

Actually I'm not sure if that's true. Yes, there were some opinion polls during the primaries that showed Sanders ahead of most/all republicans. But, at that point the Republicans were pretty much ignoring (or in some cases praising) Sanders. (On the other hand, Hillary was already a target of the Republicans.) Its easy to be popular when all your faults are hidden. Had Sanders won the Democratic nomination, the Republicans would have gone on the attack mode... They would have pointed out the huge cost of Sander's programs (its easy for people to say "Yeah, public health care", but once they see their taxes going up support would drop.) They would have pointed to things like him calling himself a socialist, and having his honeymoon in Russia. (Even though the cold war is over, I don't think people are ready to play all nice with the former "red menace"). They'd be calling him "Comrade Sanders" or something similar. And as a result of all the personal and policy criticisms, you'd see his popularity start to fall. Yes, a Sanders run would have continued with his base of eager "bernie Bros". He probably would have also kept the minority vote. But is ability to grab votes for the middle class would have been more limited. Keep in mind that she is a candidate with an exceptional amount of political experience, and for most jobs having experience is a good thing. Plus, her policies are pretty respectable.... slightly to the political left, but not so far left that it would freak out everyone. Before you say sh'es not "fit for the job", remember that she has been a republican target for years. Regardless of how great a candidate is, anyone subject to such sustained attacks for that length of time would end up looking bad.

The U.S. political system is a bit.. strange when compared to Canada. Different states have different rules for running the presidential campaigns within their jurisdictions. And, different states have different deadlines for putting a candidate on the ballot. The deadline to get a candidate on the ballot for some states was back in August (e.g. Utah, Virginia, Iowa. etc.) The deadline for other states is coming up in mid September or later (Vermont, Nebraska, etc). In theory, if Trump were to leave the race right now, they could put up another Candidate, but they would only be on the ballot in some (but not all) of the states. This would put them at a huge disadvantage. Nope, they don't. And its unfortunate. It is a worrying thing. Every electoral system needs some sort of competition. Actually, we know what the answers are. The Republican party and the political right is in the state that its in because of their own stupidity. For years, they've done everything they can to grab as much power as they can, but at the cost of their long term success. (Short term gain for long term pain.) They cater to the religious right and the NRA, then they sling as much mud as they can, between obstructing Obama at every turn (enforcing the idea that "government doesn't work"), and giving rise to the birther movement. In such an environment, you're not exactly going to get many decent candidates; instead, you will get a collection of old white guys all trying to out-Jesus each other. And of course up through the muck comes Drumph, who can both wrap himself in all the gun loving Jebus-clothing, yet can also claim "i'm an oursider". Hopefully the republicans will get smacked down, both for the presidency and in congress. Maybe then they can start putting forward candidates that aren't lunatics.

I never claimed ALL trump's supporters were racists and Nazis... some are also ignorant and/or misinformed about what he has done and what his policies are. That was my point... if a decent/honest person people were properly informed, they would not likely vote for Trump. He survives on a combination of ignorance, racism and hypocrisy. As for my use of the word "supporters", I use it because most people here are not American citizens and cannot vote. But for the most part a trump voter and supporter are equivalent in this case. First of all, not sure how you can say he's "not the status quo". After all, he's made multiple statements, many that have been contradictory, and many that are pretty much "the status quo". He has: - Supported American military interventions (Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya/ISIS, etc.) - Expressed pro-gun/anti-abortion/anti-Obamacare policies in line with other Republicans - Supported Amnesty for some illegal aliens (before flip-flopping) - Wanted to remove banking regulations that were put in place by Obama, returning us to the "status quo" that lead us to the economic hardships of 2008. Sounds pretty "status quo" to me. And in many cases where he does differ from mainstream republicans or other politicians, his policies would be horrendous. Eliminating NAFTA is a policy not held by other Republicans, but doing so would harm both the U.S. and Canada/Mexico. Building a well (another unique Trump policy) would be both extremely expensive and ineffective. By leveraging on a combination of ignorance, racism, and demagogue. Why are you bringing that up? This is a discussion forum. We discuss issues, largely for enjoyment. I recognize that I can't vote for Trump. But for some of us it is an interesting intellectual exercise to at least debate just how much of a fraud trump is. You know, you just contradicted yourself.. you both claimed "the best candidate doesn't always win", but then said if Clinton were superior she "wouldn't need to fight". So what is it? Does the best candidate always win? Or do candidates have to fight? Perhaps with more failures than you really realize. No, he made his wealth largely by: - Inheriting a bunch of it - Scamming people (Trump University anyone?) - Being famous for being famous. Much like Kim Kardashian. Yet nobody is saying she is a great businessman. None of which really gives me a lot of confidence that he has the intellectual knowledge to handle the economy. How do you know? Seriously. He hasn't released his tax returns. While Trump "claims" he is worth $10 billion, most people consider that claim to be nonsense. There are even estimates that his value is worth only $150 million. Less than his worth 2-3 decades ago, and less than the Clinton's supposed wealth. Until Trump releases his tax returns, you can't really say anything about his wealth. Yet he supported military action in Libya, Syria and the Iraq invasion. Yet one of his advisors is Roger Ailes, who has a history of sexually harassing female reporters at Fox News. Nor has he scammed dozens of people at a fraudulent university. Oh wait, that's something he DID do! Errr... not really. I've participated in various forums where the Canadian election was discussed, and any posts from Americans are treated as ones from Canadians. We recognize that its a discussion forum. Of interest for people who like to debate. First of all, are you talking about mistakes she's actually made, or (more likely) mistakes she didn't make, but you are desperately trying to pin on her anyways? Secondly, lets play a game, shall we? Which candidate created a mortgage company, only to see it go out of business, then blame the people that were hired to manage it for its failure? Which candidate claimed he didn't know who David Duke was (even though he had talked about him before), then blame a "faulty earpiece"? Donald Trump has a long history of screwing up, then blaming others for his mistakes.

Granted, Trump would still have the support of white racists and neo-Nazi supporters and religious hypocrites. But anyone who is actually honestly considering the candidates, and evaluating their background and policies would stop supporting trump. Trump would just be left with people who are t a lying sack of crap, voting for Trump because they're racist but falsely claiming "Oh its because of his policies". Look at the number of Trump supporters who claim he is more honest that Hillary, even though Politifact shows just the opposite, and that Trump lies a lot more than Clinton. Look at the number of Trump supporters who claim that he's a "good businessman" even though his past history shows a history of failures. Look at many of those who are critical of Trump. Many of them on this board (myself included) have voted Conservative in Canadian elections. Many actual republicans in the states have likewise condemned Trump. Does that really sound like "bias"? Nobody is claiming Clinton is perfect. Just far and above a better candidate than Trump. An Accurate account of Benghazi would be fare game. One that included the findings (from multiple investigations from a Republican dominated congress) that Hillary was not to blame. Yet that's not what we keep hearing from Trump supporters. You are right, he hasn't. done any of those things. But, look at what he has done. He has: seen multiple businesses of his fail, been engaged in possible fraud over Trump University, and seen his "wealth" falter and increase slower than it would had he just stuck his money in the stock market. As a businessman he is largely a failure... The one thing he is supposed to be good at, and he is not. And you want to put him in charge of the country. At least Clinton helped broker a peace deal between Palestinians and Israelis. And she was Secretary when bin Laden was killed. (If you're going to accuse her of failure on Benghazi just because she happened to be was Secretary at the time, you should also praise her for bin Laden.)

Sadly, that seems to include the majority of Trump supporters who are uninformed.

Eh? Because I quoted a news item - which btw, was brought up on tv with two news people grilling Kane about that! That's how I found out, btw.....and I googled about it. So what do you mean by original thought? Make up my own story? By "original thought" I mean post something substantial, in your own words. Very frequently, you cut and paste from various sources while giving no (or minimal) exposition of your own. An intelligent, rational, thoughtful person would post something of a topic, maybe a few lines of a reference article, then some of their own thoughts on the matter. You just cut and paste what other people say. If that's all you're doing, why are you here? And take a look at your response to my posting. I debunked your posting over and over again. In multiple ways. I also challenged you with a couple of direct questions. All of which was ignored, just so you can go back to cutting and pasting from various sources. First of all, you are also ignoring the fact that she's also done multiple media scrums. And town hall meetings. Where journalists have had free reign to ask questions. Secondly, yes, an interview and press conference are different. But they can lead to the same result. About a month ago Clinton gave over 2 hours of press interviews. Including interviews with Fox, which has been hostile to her. On the other hand, Trump regularly turns down interviews with people who won't be nice to him. Its already been explained... some politicians prefer one method of media contact over another. Once again, I will ask.... why does it matter to you. She's not ducking the media. She's still giving information to the press, but in a different format.

First of all, you have no idea why Hillary actually decided to stick by Bill. Maybe she felt that she should engage in some forgiveness (i.e. the ]i]christian[/i] thing to do. You know, christianity... the thing that so many on the political right claim to have, even though they don't seem to show any of the supposed Jesus traits.) Or maybe she and Bill actually had some sort of "open marriage", which may not be everyone's thing, but its certainly not immoral if she knew about it/agreed to it ahead of time. Secondly, I find it very strange to see the same people who condemn Hillary because Bill had an affair, ignore the fact that Trump himself had an affair with Marla Maples when he was still married to his first wife.

She was secretary of state. Not God or superman. What exactly did you expect her to do? Fly around the earth and reverse time in order to prevent the problems before they happened? And it is incorrect to say she "did nothing". I do remember reading about reports indicating she was putting in late nights at the time of the attack. Clinton was indeed wrong about the attacks being due to a youtube video. But, when a major event like that occurs, the real facts are not often known for several days. At the same time, there were protests in various middle east countries over the video. Some confusion and an incorrect conclusion that the video also played a part in Bengazzi is certainly understandable. From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/ For the sake of argument, let’s say Clinton had told the families something about the video: Would she have been telling them something she knew to be false? Not necessarily. A clear picture of whether there had been protests in Benghazi didn’t come together until Sept. 15, a day after Clinton met with the families, according to multiple Senate investigation reports. ... Even absent protests in Benghazi, some intelligence says the video played some motivational role, providing a rallying call for opportunistic attackers, according to congressional investigations.

Actually Trump makes Trump look bad. (All the media has to do is report what he says and does.) Much of what makes Clinton look bad was fabricated, either by Republicans (for example, having multiple hearings in order to try to pin Bengazi on her) or by the alt-right (Fox News' "Hillary is Sick" allegations.) I'm not saying Clinton is perfect, or that she hasn't made mistakes, but any candidate who undergoes the type of scrutiny and false allegations that she has would look bad. Heck, if Jesus came down to earth and registered as a Democrat, Fox News and the Republican party would probably accuse him of being soft on terror, and dishonest because "You don't know who is father is".

For now. It still does not change the fact that a donation to the Clinton Foundation is like a donation to the "Clinton Family Pension Fund". I am not defending Trump. I just believe in being as accurate as possible. You claim that you're not defending trump, but you published an unsubstantiated allegation that makes Clinton look bad. (And one by the way that makes no sense... the Clintons are already well off financially due to speaking fees and book royalties. They wouldn't need to take money from the Clinton foundation. Nor would they actually be able to. Its a charitable organization (one that is very highly rated)... its books are open. If Clinton started to sue it as their own retirement fund, contributions would disappear.

Just out of curiosity, do you ever have an original thought of your own? So, why no press conference... Perhaps because its an election campaign, and different candidates have different preferences in the way they choose to interact with the media. Yes, Clinton doesn't engage in the same sort of media exposure that Trump does, but that doesn't mean she has totally isolated herself. A few points: - While she hasn't had "press conferences", she has had various media scrums. Perhaps not as intensive, but the press have had chances to ask questions in an uncontrolled environment. (NPR has a list showing its happened around a dozen times) - The article you quoted dismissed the interviews that Clinton has done by pointing out that not all were done by Journalists, and some may have had time limits. But that doesn't apply to all of her interviews, some of which have been done by serious journalists (according to NPR, only about 1/5th of her interviews have been by non-journalsts), and have been more extensive. And, she has questions directed at her that deal with many of the issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation - I find it a bit humorous that the trump supporters would pick up on this issue. After all, the general accusation is that "The media is for hillary", yet here is a case where news organizations are criticising her. Perhaps the media isn't as biased as the Trump side is suggesting. Oh, and by the way, while you're criticizing Hillary for avoiding press conferences, keep in mind that Trump regularly turns down requests for interviews from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. For the past month, he has appeared almost exclusively on Fox News, an environment that is extremely friendly to him. Why do you think that is? (See: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/media/clinton-trump-no-interviews/)Oh, and he's revoked the press credentials for news organizations he doesn't like. (See: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/13/donald-trump-revokes-washington-post-press-credentials/). So what does that say about Trump's willingness to undergo media scrutiny? Here's the big question... why exactly is it a big concern of yours? After all, a press conference (where questions are divided among multiple reporters) isn't exactly a reliable way to obtain information information, and much of what you might get are canned responses. I rather suspect that the only reason you and other Trump supporters (like the neo-Nazi sympathizers) really care is that its one of the very few ways that you think your candidate is better. After all, you can't claim he's more honest... Politifact has shown Trump lies more than Clinton. You can't say that he's more open... he hasn't released his tax returns, whereas Clinton has. You can't say he's in better health, since the release of his medical records was almost comical. You can't say his policies are better thought out, since so much of what he says is fluff.. empty headed ideals with no details behind them. So, you latch on to the one thing you think makes Trump look good (Hey look! press conferences). Even though it doesn't. From: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/hillary-clinton-media-interviews-224096(~1 month ago) In 24 hours, Clinton conducted interviews with four major news organizations — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal — and five major television outlets, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. Each interview lasted about 15 minutes... (i.e. not the short 3-5 minute interviews she was accused of giving) From: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/25/491311747/tallying-hillary-clintons-appearances-with-the-news-media Clinton has entertained questions a dozen times in so-called gaggles with the reporters who travel with her....Clinton also participated in nine town-hall sessions from Jan. 1 to July 31, at which she took questions from journalists and members of the public. So, doesn't sound to me like she's ducking the press.

It is a common tactic by the super rich in the US to set up foundations and then collect salaries for their role as "directors". Clinton's tax records have been released, and show that the foundation is not the source of their wealth. (Most of their recent money has been earned through speaking fees and book royalties.) So, no big huge salary to the clintons. Ah tax returns... like the things trump won't release. Some people are saying its because he donated to NAMBLA. I don't believe it. But people are talking about it. Smart people. The best people.

Perhaps because we give the CBC too much money and as such our producers don't feel the need to actually work hard to produce hit shows. Or maybe you're just cherry-picking a few examples of success, ignoring the fact that while there may be a few "hits" in the BBC schedule, a lot of stuff is still sub-standard.

No, its not like that at all. People have the right to free speech. A private citizen should absolutely have the right to make jokes that are offensive. So in that situation the HRC ruling was ridiculous. The situation with Chritch is different because he is a government employee. I have no problem with the joke he made. Heck, if he were a private citizen I'd encourage him to go nuts... be as offensive as he wants to be. But, he is getting payed (at least in part) by our tax dollars. There is a difference between "You have no right to free speech as a private citizen and we will fine you because we don't like what you say", and "Don't insult the one who pays your salary".

I don't think its that uncommon for people not to know details about the show. This Hour has 22 Minutes attracts ~800,000 viewers. This means less than 3% of all Canadians will be tuned in to the show. Even if someone has heard of the show, they may not necessarily be a viewer. I have seen one or 2 episodes over a decade ago, but they didn't really entice me to continue viewing. I have no idea who any of the current performers are. A few years ago there was a controversy because someone was given government funding to publish a "dumb blond" joke book. This situation seems remarkably similar... government funding going to "the arts", to produce something that few people will use. As for the awards the show has won, keep in mind that that probably says more about poor quality of Canadian shows in general. I would gladly watch an episode of The Daily Show over 22 Minutes or Air Farce... both shows feature political satire, but it is much better done on the Daily Show.

Uhh... so? Is your argument is "everybody is criticized so its ok"? If so, how do you know whatever criticism they received is balanced? Do you count the jokes made against each party to make sure there are an equal number of Conservative and Liberal jokes? Do you weigh that against other factors like the number of viewers? The argument "they make fun of everyone" doesn't mean that they can't still be biased, nor does it mean that some of their jokes can be more distasteful than others. I'd rather avoid the whole mess by just privatising the CBC. Then their performers can be just as biased as they want.

First of all, the fact that a policy is "extremely popular" doesn't necessarily mean it is a good policy. You can probably point to a lot of government policies that were "popular" at some point but are now considered mistakes. As citizens, we should be willing to stand up for bad policies, even if we end up in the minority. Secondly, it is true that there are many polls that show Canadians want to continue funding the CBC. But, at the same time, they aren't watching the CBC (its ratings are typically pretty bad.) Furthermore, I rather suspect that Canadians might change their opinions if the cost of the CBC were put to them in a more direct manner. (If, for example, polls asked "Do you want ~$25 of your money to be deducted from your paycheck to support the CBC, I suspect you might see support for the CBC drop. Its easy to support something when the costs are well hidden on a budget sheet and you don't see how it can personally impact you.) I remember reading a poll that showed that while most people supported the CBC, the majority of people actually had no idea how much the government was giving them, with most people thinking the amount was actually around half of what they actually receive. Sadly, I've lost track of the link. The fact that its a "reality" doesn't necessarily mean we have to accept that reality. As for your examples: BBC: funded through license fees. Yet polls show most Brits want the license fee scrapped. Yeah. Lets do that to the CBC... wonder how popular the CBC will be when people actually see the direct connection between them paying the license fee and the CBC getting its money. I suspect support for the CBC will fall pretty darn quck PBS: gets ~$445 million from the government, and that's in a country with 10 times the population. Canada gives the CBC roughly ~$1 billion/year. If we funded the CBC at the same level as PBS on a per capita basis, they'd be getting ~50 million/year, or roughly 5% of what they are getting now. Hey, I'd love for the CBC to be cut back that much! I want him to keep working. At a privatized CBC. Where his continued employment would be due to if his jokes are not considered funny, (or at least funny enough to overcome any offense they might provide).

You're right! Nobody will ever cover Canadian issues without the CBC. Well, other than CTV and global. And hundreds of private radio broadcasters. Oh, and several newspapers and newspaper chains (Sun Media, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, etc.) Oh, and several magazines like Macleans. And multiple on-line sources, some of which are uniquely Canadian, others which are offshoots of International media groups but still have Canadian reporters/sources (like Huffington Post.ca). So yeah, if you ignore all those Canadian sources, you have nobody to cover Canada. Yes they do. However, "viewers" are not some monolithic group... you've got people spanning the entire political spectrum, from the extreme left to the hard right. And different sources are able to cater to the various groups. You have sources on the left like the Toronto Star, and sources on the political right, such as Sun media. First of all, there is no guarantee that such viewpoints are actually worth being heard. Secondly, as I pointed out, we have a wide range of sources, many which give different viewpoints along the political spectrum. There is little risk that less popular viewpoints won't have at least some outlet. (unless of course they're totally insane.) Lastly, you may have heard of this thing called "the internet".

Probably because its still a relatively new disease, and it takes a long time for medical science to come up with vaccines for diseases that haven't been encountered before. Until a couple of years ago, the number of people infected was relatively small, and deaths were rare. I don't even think they linked Zika to the more serious effects on pregnant women until 2014 or so. So, it was understandable for the disease to fly under the radar. Now that they know more about the virus (and its effects) they are working on vaccines, but it will take a few years for them to create one, send it through multi-stage trials, and finally begin distribution. They have developed a couple of candidate vaccines but they are still in the testing stages. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/zika/researchapproach/Pages/vaccineResearch.aspx