segnosaur

Congratulations. For exposing the idiocy of the man making the quotes and the stupidity of his followers who haven't caught on, I award you one internet. Don't spend it all in one place.

Actually there are ways for people to know "for sure"... one of the Clinton donors (or executives of the foundation) could turn on the Clintons and say "I saw these exact favors being given in exchange for this donation". There could be emails uncovered between foundation executives that explicitly lay out "Donation received... Hillary will now do X". Yet we don't have any of that. The Clinton foundation continued to function pretty well even after Hillary left the state department. Now, eventually you'll probably see their work drop off, but that's probably because the Clintons are getting fairly old, and much of the Foundation's work was enhanced by their presence. As they get older, they won't be able to keep up the pace. But don't worry... who needs to save the lives of those with Malaria or prevent elephant poaching (like the Clinton foundation was doing) when you always have the Trump foundation to purchase portraits of Trump? The 2 of them sound like they're both doing good work! http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ Again, its a case of balance... even if the Clinton foundation was flawed, those flaws pale in comparison to Trump's foundation. If anyone based their vote in any way on "who ran the better charity", Clinton should have been the clear winner. Except of course anyone who was bamboozled into thinking "Clinton foundation is bad!" while ignoring the Trump foundation.

First of all,, prior to the rise of Fox news, I think it would be fair to say that while individual media outlets may have had biases, overall there was a pretty fair balance. Yes, some sources (e.g. many prominant satirists) were more often on the political left, while talk radio was skewed to the right. And generally newspapers were often split roughly down the middle, with rougly half of them endorsing Democrats and the other half endorsing Repulican candidates. Secondly, some people may think there is a world of difference between the type of bias exhibited by a source like (for example) CNN or the New York Times (media sources that may have biases in their editorials but stick close to facts with their news reporting) and sources like Fox news (or the even more extreme sites like Brietbart) that do more than just exhibit editorial preferences, but attempt to actually manufacture news for political effect. Some may say there is a line between opposition to political correctness and outright racism. Trump crossed that line. And what regulations would those be? The environmental ones that help control pollution? The financial ones put in place to prevent another 2008-style financial melt down? Yes, because nothing says "good citizen" like a willingness to put an incompetent racist orangutan with proposals that might crash the economy (as well as having a huge number of potential scandals much bigger than any that might have occurred under the "establishment") , all in response to some perceived slights against you.

Except of course that we have no actual proof that there were any sort of favors granted in exchange for financing. But the fact that you think there's some sort of nefarious "money for favors" thing going is suggest that indeed you were bamboozled.

At least Trump is creating jobs! http://perezhilton.com/2017-01-14-donald-trump-inauguration-paid-seat-fillers-reports-twitter-job-creator/?from=post The Donald is resorting to shelling out money to seat-fillers to be sure there's a full house when he's sworn in next Friday!! See? He's a job creator. (Granted this is a celebrity gossip site; still, quite funny.)

Short answer: no. Long answer; Heck no. As other posters have pointed out, neither Trump nor the republicans have any concrete plans for improving the health care system. For years, the only thing that the Republicans could agree on was "Obamacare=evil". They had no coherent strategy for replacement. The same applies to Trump himself, who didn't actually have a plan, only made vague statements about how he would replace it with "something great". There are a huge number of problems that the Republicans will have to deal with: - Multiple competing/conflicting proposals from the Republican party itself - People who want to repeal Obamacare immediately (and maybe come up with a replacement in the future) vs. those who only want to repeal it once a new plan is in place - Promises by Trump that the'll somehow keep certain aspects of Obamacare (e.g. allow people to be covered if they have preexisting conditions), even though it will be pretty impossible to keep those aspects of Obamacare while scrapping the rest. (Not to mention that many of the Republican proposals contradict Trump's claims) - Many Trump supporters are only partial idiots (rather than complete idiots like other Trump supporters). They're convinced that they don't like Obamacare, but they're quite happy with what their own insurance currently gives them, not realizing that their insurance is part of Obamacare. Eliminate obamacare, and all of a sudden the Republicans will have to deal with many of their own supporters who see their current health care adversely affected. Overall, its a huge flaming pile of dog poop. And I think the Republicans and Trump deserve every moment of it.

First of all, I don't think its quite accurate to say that power always brings out the worst in people. After all, the democrats seemed to run a fairly clean set of primaries, with the candidates disagreeing on policy but not resorting to personal attacks. Secondly, the point isn't so much that power brings out the worst in people... the problem is that the voters let themselves be bamboozled by such bunk. By all means, let Trump and the right-wing echo chamber make bogus claims about "corrupt hillary and her foundation", but the voters should have actually looked at things with rationality and reason and said "we're not falling for your bunk. We see that even with the faults with the Clinton foundation it still did a better job than the Trump foundation". But we got Trump and his klan spewing nonsense, and a significant number of voters lapped it up. The fact that voters weren't that smart is cause for concern.

Just a little nit-pick... Hillary didn't loose the 2008 primaries due to super-delegates. She did have a higher percentage of the popular vote, but Obama won a higher number of pledged delegates (and supposedly, the democratic party penalized Michigan, I think for holding their primary too early. As a result, Obama didn't contest Michigan but Clinton did, which may have distorted the vote totals.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 ETA: If I were Hillary the think I'd be miffed at most is the way the Clinton foundation was treated. The foundation generally did good work... had high ratings from agencies that evaluate their spending, actually had support among some Republicans, etc. Yet for all the work that she put into the organization (and all the money she personally donated), it ended up possibly harming her candidacy, whereas the Trump foundation (which was better known for bribing U.S. politicians and buying portraits of Trump) seemed to have far less effect on the Trump candidacy.

Actually no its not. The memo/report that there is material that Trump can be blackmailed on does exist. It was obviously considered significant enough for various politicians and intelligence agencies to look into it, even if the contents of that memo are not verified. (And it should be pointed out that the media seems to be stressing that whatever the memo says, the results are not verified.) This is not like (for example) the Obama birther nonsense or pizzagate where there was absolutely no reason to believe in those particular conspiracies. Actually, yes they would, and they did. Heck, here's a report that a supposed Obama "birther" has supposedly found evidence that his birth certificate is fake. The guy's claim is completely bogus. Far less eviddence supporting his claim than there is behind Trump's Russian links, but there it is, on the web site of a fairly main-stream news organization. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/sheriff-joe-arpaio-probe-proves-obama-birth-certificate-fake/95500958/

First of all, you seem to have ignored a very key point: That one of the main problems with the hacking and the reveals was that it was unbalanced, that it was only the Democrats who got their internal communications revealed. Were things to be totally fair, both sides should have gotten the same treatment... secret/personal emails from both people released. But that didn't happen. As for what foreign leaders may say or do, that's totally in another ball park. If some leader says "I'd like leader X to win", we know exactly where that comment is coming from, and the American voter can accept or reject their statement as they see fit. It bears no resemblance to a foreign country both conducting espionage and revealing information in order to sway the election, without anyone knowing who was behind the attacks. Now, in an attempt to bring this back to Trump: This whole issue reveals so much about the current situation we find ourselves in with the President-elect. We were told over and over again (By Trump and many of his supporters) that his actions during the primaries were just for show, that he could be "presidential" once he won the election. Instead, what we see is the kind of idiotic circus that many of us were worried about, with Trump's lack of intelligence and integrity being shown front and center. What Trump should have done was release a statement along the lines of "There are reports of hacking. This will be investigated. We'll confer with our allies and those in the intelligence committee to see what an appropriate response is, although we need to balance our desire for revenge against the need for diplomacy. In the mean time I have confidence in the American Voters and our election system". Simple, conciliatory at points, gives him breathing room, yet shows he acknowledges the possible problem. Instead, what do we get? First claims that it didn't happen/no evidence (which he later has to go back on) Insults the intelligence community Claims Putin and Assange's claims of russian non-involvement were somehow proof Lies about when a security briefing was supposed to have taken place Lies about how he's got information and will release it "Tuesday or Wednesday". That was several weeks ago. Spoiler alert: there was no such information release Blames the Democratic party for bad security (a game of "blame the victim") Its like a checklist of things not to do. By insulting the intelligence agencies, he's setting up an adversarial system when he actually should be working with them. (Yes, many at the top of the agencies were political appointees, but there are plenty of long-term employees at places like the CIA and FBI who take their positions seriously. Now they realize they have a president elect who may not listen even if they have something important to report on.). By taking the word of Putin/Assange over those of the CIA/FBI/etc. he risks alienating Republicans in congress, from whom he might eventually need support. The lies (e.g. that he'll release information Tues/Wed) re-enforce the negative opinion his detractors have had about him all along that he lies/can't be trusted. In short, those of us who didn't want Trump to be elected often did so because we didn't think he had the level-headedness for the job. Now we have more evidence that we were right.

No, Trump didn't put him in his place. Trump was bullying the reporter after Trump attacked the credibility of the news organization he works for and the reporter was trying to address the issue (and rightfully so) but Trump is too much of a coward (as bullies usually are) to debate it with him. Exactly. One of the functions of the media is to help keep our politicians in line by reporting on relevant news, even if that news is distasteful to the politician. The fact that Trump wants to undermine that is rather significant. Many fellow reporters have stood up for CNN and for Acosta. Even one of the Fox reporters has pointed out that Trump was in the wrong. https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-defends-rival-cnn-against-donald-trump-213951823.html http://www.salon.com/2017/01/12/journalists-stand-up-to-sean-spicer-donald-trumps-press-secretary-for-threatening-to-ban-cnns-jim-acosta/

Thought that was pretty obvious. All political organizations will have internal/non-public discussions (about things like strategy, preferences, etc.) Some ideas may be brought up that end up getting soundly rejected by the majority. Many of the Democratic party leaks fall into that category. (For example, the worker who suggested using Sanders' religion against him, an idea that was soundly rejected.) However, by leaking the emails, the hackers managed to build a false narrative that somehow Clinton was dirty because, well, she won the primary. Now, had the Trump side been similarly hacked and their emails leaked, we may have seen similar issues... an email between Trump campaign workers about "How can we cover Trump's latest lies?" may have turned off a few voters. But because the hacking was only directed at Clinton and the Democrats we got an unbalanced view of how things work. Now, I have no idea about how that ultimately affected the election. Maybe it caused enough potential Clinton supporters to stay home on election day to tip the election in favor of Trump, maybe he would still have won. But much like attempted murder... sometimes its a problem even if you try something (even if you don't accomplish your goals).

What, you mean the Liberals have actually managed to set up an open competition, ran it in a completely unbiased manner, and picked the plane that truly is the best selection both in terms of price and local viability? When did that happen? Last time I head, the Liberals were setting up boondoggles of their very own.

I'm sure the NHL also has a few extra helmets they can lend. From: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/course-f-35-comes-400000-augmented-reality-helmet/ ... it combines noise-canceling headphones, night vision, a forehead-mounted computer, and a projector ... The pilot can see through the base and walls of the aircraft, thanks to six cameras mounted outside the F-35. .. It labels objects in her field of view with distance, bearing, speed, and altitude... the plane’s sensors are constantly looking for threats and keeping track of nearby wingmen, projecting relevant info onto the inside of the helmet’s visor.... the military’s been using helmet-mounted displays since the 1980s. The key difference with this dome protector is the way it collates and visualizes info from all the plane’s systems.

The rules do allow the government to skip competitions under certain circumstances (e.g. emergency needs, limited vendors, etc.) I suspect that the leasing of the Asterix falls into that category. The question is whether there is such an emergency need to purchase the F18 Super Hornet as a stop-gap measure. Given the fact that the military said that the current fleet of CF-18s should be viable until at least 2025, AND the fact that our allies were satisfied with the way we had deployed our existing planes until now, then there doesn't appear to have been an emergency, The view that many have is that the claim of an "emergency need" is just a made-up problem that the Liberals falsely created in order to rig the system to be politically favorable to them.

The stealth has long ago been hacked by the Chinese, Ah yes, the myth of the magical Chinese Stealth Busting technology. (The same myth also applies to theoretical Russian anti-stealth technology.) You do realize that at this point, there is about as much evidence of Chinese stealth hacking technology available for use as there is of the Loch Ness Monster or the shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Here are a few things to consider: The U.S. has been working with stealth technology for decades, the chinese for only a few short years. If such magical anti-stealth technology existed, why wouldn't the U.S. have invented it first (having more experience dealing with stealth in the first place)? And if stealth were so easy to defeat, why are the Chinese wasting time and money building their own stealth planes? The more likely scenario is that the idea of magical anti-stealth technology was a myth created by either the chinese (who want to improve their standing in the world) or opponents of the F35 (who want to discredit it for whatever reason.) And even if there were (in theory) some sort of anti-stealth technology... It will likely take decades to go from some concept that works in lab to one that would work in the field, and then to be used in weapons, and then to be sold to potential opponents to current JSF users, during with time the stealth functionality will be an asset. I think it speaks volumes about the opponents of the F35 if they have to result to dragging up such myth. As I pointed out, the helmet is an amazing piece of technology. Heck, a pilot can even use it to look through the plane, something that can't be done on any other jet. As for the ejection seat issue, it was overall a pretty minor issue, and its pretty much been solved. From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/20/f35_ejection_seat_modifications_nearly_done/ Three key modifications are taking place, according to Defense News. A weight-activated switch in the seat will delay parachute deployment if a smaller pilot is sat in the seat, letting it slow down slightly and thus putting less force on the pilot; a head support panel has been fitted to stop the pilot's neck from “over-flexing backwards”; and helmet manufacturers Rockwell Collins are trying to cut down the helmet's weight. While it doesn't have the supercruise ability of (for example) the F22, it does have more supercruise ability than the F18E/F (i.e. the main competitor to the F35 here in Canada, and the one the Liberals are planning on buying.) Its such a bizarre line of thought... The F35 can't do something perfectly, so lets go out and buy a plane that can't do something at all. Not sure where that claim is coming from. First of all, as I have pointed out, the functionality of the helmet allows the pilot to "see" through the plane, giving them abilities they certainly don't have in other fighter jets. Now, there were some complaints that the pilot's seat was obstructing some of their view. But lets take a look at what a test pilot actually had to say. From: https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/ What I initially found to a bit negative in visual combat was the cockpit view, which wasn’t as good as in the F-16....However, It turned out that practice was all it took to improve the situation...The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35. Now, the F16 does have a remarkably good cockpit view... but it is a rarity, and we are not buying the F16s. The competitors to the F35 are the F18, Eurofighter, Raphael, etc., and it is likely that none of those planes would be as good as the F16 either. Your argument has already been addressed and debunked. So, your arguments are pretty typical of the F35 opponents... full of myths (the magical chinese stealth busting technology), outdated information (ejector seat issues) and poor thought processes. It is true, the current agreements that we have to build F35 components don't require that we buy the plane. But how long do you think that will continue if we decide never to buy the F35? How long before countries like Denmark or the U.K. go to Locheed Martin and say "why are you giving business to Canada when we are loyal customers and have companies that can also build the components?" Canada may eventually find themselves on the outside. Now, some may be claiming "Boeing will make up for the loss of contracts", but the future global market for the F18 is perhaps a few dozen planes, whereas its expected that thousands of F35s will be built. So which do you think gives us more opportunity for work? Building parts for a dozen planes or building parts for a thousand planes? Yes, some countries have reduced the number of F35s they plan to buy. So what? There's probably not a plane out there that some country hasn't cut back their orders for. For example, here's a case where Austria has cut back the number of Typhoons they were going to buy. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2675028220070626 Fighter jets are expensive. When there are budget problems, often military purchases are seen as a luxury that can be cut and/or delayed. Probably the only reason you don't see more cases of countries cutting orders for the F18 E/F is because they have so few orders. The fact is, countries may be reducing their purchases for F35s, but they are still buying them; they've won multiple competitions.

No we didn't fix the problem. We voted in a government that is introducing all new problems, without fixing the original one. The Liberals have been in power over a year. More than enough time to run a competition if they so choose (especially since some of the work had already been done.) Yet they haven't. So our "problem" isn't fixed. Instead, we're about to buy F18 Super Hornets (with no competition), potentially wasting millions/billions of dollars and potentially distorting the results of any future competitions.

Once again... they haven't. Development costs are higher than initially planned, but for Canada's purposes, it was irrelevant... we would in theory have had a signed contract with a fixed price. Once again, irrelevant. The plane has taken longer to develop than expected, but Canada wasn't prepared to purchase the planes back then anyways. So the fact that it has taken longer to become available didn't really impact us at all. Now that the plane is late in its testing cycle, getting closer to entering full production, has been purchased by other countries, and has been declared operational by at least parts of the U.S. military, its availability would fit in well with Canada's expected procurement plans. The F35 is a very technologically advanced machine... its got features that are either completely unique, or only found on a small handful of planes. (Everything from stealth, the pilot's helmet, internal weapons bays, limited supercrise, advanced sensors, etc.) When you're dealing with a plane with those features, its not unexpected to run into problems that delay development. The only way not to risk running into delays is to not do anything new with technology, in witch case you run the risk of seeing potential rivals outstrip you.

Not to mention the fact that the Liberals and NDP realized that they can score some cheap political points by engaging in such shenanigans. I guess scoring cheap political points is a good thing if its your side that manages to do it. Errr... no they weren't. Now, it is true... the F35 was initially envisioned as a low cost plane along the lines of the F16, and its costs are higher than initially planned. But that is irrelevant. The costs (as the planned purchase laid out) would have been relatively fixed. Any costs due to development problems were already factored in to the purchase price (as they would be whenever we purchase any plane.)

If/when we purchase new planes, we will likely have the initial costs (plus costs for for spare parts and fixes to any initial problems) set out at the beginning. In other words, if we sign a contract for the F35, the costs of all the planes will likely be known before the first plane rolls off the assembly line. I think in this case inflation is irrelevant; costs tend to be adjusted to a baseline year. Harper did not do as well as I had hoped when it came to military procurement. (And its not just the F35... after an early increase in military funding he ended up letting our finding lag again.) In a way, its understandable to be a bit hesitant, given the Oppositions ability to raise a stink about the military. But, the Liberals are in charge now. Its their issue. The air force said that our current fleet would last until ~2025... more than enough time to run a competition, select a plane, and get them delivered if the Liberals started acting early in their mandate. But they haven't yet, have they. Instead, they are wasting time trying to justify the purchase of new F18s. They've taken what was an issue of concern under the conservatives (planes that will need to be replaced in ~ 1 decade) and turning it into an emergency (planes need to be replaced in a couple of years.)

While I'm not necessarily against open competitions, remember that they are not perfect. - They can be rigged; Canada's selection of the Cyclone as the replacement for the Sea King is probably an example of that - They cost time and money If there are multiple options and one choice is obviously superior then running a competition becomes a relatively pointless exercise. Perhaps they did. And perhaps I have the right to post nude pictures of myself on the internet. The fact that someone has a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should do something. I think its pretty obvious why... because people in the anti-F35 brigade would look at the higher costs associated with a longer time frame, take that number out of context, and falsely claim "Look! Costs are ballooning!"

Yes, they had a right to play petty politics with our national defense. Doesn't necessarily make it right. Not really. The F35 has won multiple competitions throughout the world. (And other countries have managed to run their military procurement programs with far less political partisanship.) The fact that other countries have looked at all the options and decided on the F35 should be seen as an indicator that perhaps its a better option than its naysayers seem to be suggesting. Or do you somehow think that somehow every other military that has chosen the F35 is somehow incompetent, and that somehow only Canada (the country that gave us the Sea King Replacement fiasco and the leaky submarines) has the brains to make another choice? Unfortunately we're not getting a transparent process... Opponents of the F35 always seem to do their best to appeal to emotion... whether its quoting outdated figures or making apples to oranges comparisions. And of course now we've gone from a sole-source F35 procurement (for better or worse) to a sole-source F18 procurement, with even less transparency than we had for the F35 puchase. Yah Liberals!

.The claim that its $46 billion/30 years seems to be due to the fact that ~12 years were being considered as time for development/delivery. But here's the thing... were we to order the F35, we wouldn't get all the planes on day 1 of the order, but we also wouldn't have to wait 12 years to get them all either. there will be a significant amount of time in which we will have viable squadrons of F35s witin that 12 year window. Keep in mind that that particular study was written by Michael Byers, who was an NDP candidate in previous elections. Far from what would be considered an unbiased source.

Your claim was "Nobody can afford the F35". If we can afford the CBC, we can afford the F35. Both are relatively the same cost when laid out on a year-by-year basis. Engine problems have been fixed. (Typical of the F35 critics... dragging up "problems" that have long been dealt with.) Unlike the Oxygen systems on the Super Hornet. But hey, I guess pilots don't need to breath, do they? The costing was done by KPMG, a private financial auditing firm, and seemed to be accepted by the Auditor General. Up until the F35, the cost of our military purchases had never been given for ~40 year time frames. The only reason the Liberals and NDP wanted that information was to falsely make the claim "Oh look! Costs are rising", playing to the gullible people who aren't really smart enough to recognize that using something for ~10 years longer will mean that costs go up, not because your purchase is necessarily more expensive.

There have been all sorts of problems with the Super Hornet. The canopy problems are just the latest issue... Wings that were falling off planes, An air supply system that threatened to cut off oxygen for the pilots, hardpoints that were causing missiles to "drift upwards" when launched. In each of these cases, either the problem has been fixed, or the armed forces has found a work around or has learned to live with the problem. The F18 Super Hornet is not a bad plane. But all fighter jets are complex machines, and there's always a chance something will go wrong. The problem is when something is found wrong with the F35 it is often seen as some sort of horror story, but when a problem is found with the F18, the F35 critics just shrug their shoulders. It would be nice if they were a little less hypocritical. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2007/05/17/f-18-super-hornet-problems-special-report/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/oxygen-problems-afflict-297-navy-marine-hornets/