segnosaur

Actually we can. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, the cost of the F35 has gradually been coming down as production rates are increased and some of the bugs are ironed out of the assembly process. By the time Canada would purchase the planes, the cost would be fairly competitive with other planes of similar functionality. And lets put things into perspective... the conservative government released total cost estimates of the F35 of ~$40 billion costed out to 42 years. That works out to ~1 billion per year. That's roughly the same amount that the government spends on the CBC in a year. If we can afford ~$1 billion/year to fund a TV/Radio network that has very low ratings, I'm sure we can pony up the money for basic defense of the country. ETA: The problem when trying to cost out the F35 for Canada is that initially costs were given for initial purchase and/or flying the plane for ~20 years. Then, when costs were demanded for ~40 years, the costs "appeared" to increase. But they didn't....they were just looking at a longer timeframe. Any vehicle is going to cost more to maintain if you use it for a longer period of time. But, it made people think "Oh know! Costs are increasing" whey they haven't been.

It is true that there were some initial problems where landing the F35B on the deck of some of the newer ships was causing unexpected heat damage. However, it should be pointed out that the problem was not restricted to the F35.. Modifications also had to be done to handle the Osprey, that was also causing damage. https://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-continue-plague-big-deck-amphibs

Do you have any proof that Argus (or any of Assange's detractors here) have actually supported him in the past, and are only now critical about him?

The questions appearing on that survey seem to be different than the ones asked in the Forum poll. (At least from what I understand.) The Forum poll asked about approval... the Nanos weekly survey seemed to have a question on preferred PM. While the 2 might be similar in concept, I'm not sure if I'd consider them equivalent. After all, its possible for someone to disapprove of a politician and still vote for them because they're "best of a bad lot".

Labeling something a "witch hunt" does not necessarily make it so. Even if we don't have the evidence of a videotape of Putin personally logging into Democratic party computers to steal data (with Julian Assange looking over his shoulder in loving admiration), that doesn't mean that the evidence that was gathered is somehow invalid. I'm a skeptic, in the 'rational thinker' sense. I believe in going where the evidence takes me. If the preponderance of evidence points towards Russian involvement, then the rational thinker should say "Hmmm... that's the most likely scenario". Its a largely irrelevant distinction... Whether the Russians tried to tip the election towards Trump or just tried to cause the election to be a mess, they still interfered in the election. And Trump handled the situation badly, by immediately dismissing the concerns and vindictively attacking the CIA using yet more lies and disinformation. Its not a quality people should want in their president, dismissing intelligence reports by skilled agencies in favor of his own narrative. Which is not the question I asked... I asked for evidence that the U.S. tampered in Russian elections, not those of Russian neighbors. After all, the attacks were not traced to Russian neighbors, but to Russia itself. If your claim that its some sort of "tit-for-tat", then you'd need to show the same sort of attacks on Russia that the U.S. had to deal with.

In the real world, its possible to identify the source of an intrusion, even if a case that could result in criminal charges is not brought forward. There is evidence pointing to Russia... software left behind on Russian computers that were sourced to Russian hackers, communication with an IP that had been used in similar attacks against Germany. http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ Ummmm... what exactly has Assange done to actually earn that level of trust? Did it ever occur to you that Assange might be lying? His dislike for Clinton has been well established, and he does have a show on Russia Today (a state-sponsored media outlet.) Furthermore, he has a motive for lying: by denying links to Russia, he can claim Wikileaks neutrality (even if its not.) On the other hand, consider those who claim that Russia was behind the hacking.... you have both Democrats and republicans, various intelligence agencies like the CIA, and private security firms all claiming Russian involvement. What would be their motives for lying about the Russians? Granted, the democrats might have a motive, but why would prominant republicans? After all, claims of Russian ties could smear all republicans, not just Trump. What would the CIA have to gain? They work for Obama now, but in a month or so they'll be working for Trump; what benefit would they have in lying about the guy who will soon be signing their paychecks (in a figurative sense)? And then there are the private security firms... they base their reputation on their skills; if they are caught lying, their reputation is damaged. So you have multiple groups all standing by the "Russian was involved" story, most of whom would see little or no benefit in lying.

The concern is that Trump and his appointments are either going to: 1) Make decisions that put their own personal interests ahead of those of the country and its allies. 2) be totally unqualified, and through blunders end up getting the U.S. into more trouble than it needs to be in. For example, Carson said he was unqualified to run a government department... but there he is heading up HUD. Keep in mind that much of Obama's actions with regard to the military have been reactive rather than proactive. The U.S. bombed Libya, but the conflict wasn't initiated by Obama's actions. Similarly, the U.S. has been involved in the conflict with ISIS, but the roots of that conflict predate his administration. Furthermore, before you complain about how Hillary and Obama have used the military, you have to compare that to how Trump would have reacted in similar circumstances. Trump supported the invasion of Iraq (he just lied about it later). He supported the bombing of Libya. So things would likely be just as bad (if not worse) if Trump were President over the past 8 years.

First of all, $4000? Yes, there may be people who are so poor that they can't afford $4000. But for all practical purposes that is such a small amount that the number of people that it would disqualify (who might actually want to serve in the Senate and who have all the other qualifications) would probably be insignificant. Secondly, the house of commons (which maintains the majority of the political power anyways, and are elected positions) has no such requirement for property. If Joe Poor-man (who lived on the street and had nothing to his name) wanted to run for MP (or even prime minister) and he could convince a significant number of people to vote for him, he'd be in office. So no, we don't just have the "illusion" of democracy. We actually do have a functioning democracy.

Those torches brought to you by Ever-Flame, a trademark of BurningStuff Inc. Remember, when you are burning stuff down, Turn to Ever-Flame for all your destructive purposes.

Its quite possible that such a poll by Nanos exists. However, if you find the reference for it, I'd suggest looking at 2 things: 1) When was the poll taken. After all, Trudeau has done a few things that might have affected his popularity in the past month... the pipeline announcements might anger both environmentalists (who wanted no pipelines) and supporters of the oil industry (who wanted more pipelines). Then there was his Castro gaff, which (while not a major issue) might have chipped away at some of his support. The poll referenced above was taken in early december, so it would have reflected those events. Any poll taken more than a month before that could be considered out of date. - What question is the Nanos poll asking. After all, if you ask a question like "do you approve of the job Trudeau is doing", you are going to get a different answer than if you ask "would you vote for Trudeau". Here's something else to consider... Forum research also did a poll in June 2016, when they showed Trudeau sitting at a 57% approval rating. If your argument is that they are somehow biased, then you have to ask yourself why they would show his approval at such a high rating in June and only now show it dipping. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/10/elbowgate-did-nothing-to-hurt-trudeaus-popularity-forum-poll-says.html

Not really sure where those "Intel Vets" are getting their information. They claim it wasn't a hack because there was "no evidence". But there was plenty of evidence. Security firms found tools on DNC computers that had been used by Russian hackers in the past. They've even traced communication to an IP address that had been used on cyber attacks on the German government. Pretty solid evidence that it wasn't an insider. http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ Maybe, maybe not. But here's a question... did the U.S. interfere with the previous Russian election? After all, the only ones that would have the right to any sort of "revenge" turn-about would be if the U.S. made similar attempts to change the results of Russian elections. Why would it? Every country probably does it. May be dirty pool, but if the U.S. didn't engage in such practices then they'd be put at a disadvantage. Do you honestly think that, had the U.S. not engaged in various forms of espionage in the past, that Russia would not have attempted their cyber attacks on the U.S.?

Well, lets see... On one hand you have multiple intelligence agencies in the U.S., politicians from both the republican and democratic party, and private security firms all claiming that the hacking was done on behalf of the Russian government. On the other hand, the groups that are claiming that there was no such hacking are basically the Trump campaign (and keep in mind Trump has had more than half of the statements analyzed on polifact rated as 'false') and the Russian government (headed by Putin.. of "we're not invading Crimera... those soldiers are really just guys in halloween costumes" fame.) I think it should be pretty easy to know who to believe. I'm sure the U.S. does do a lot of hacking into other countries. (Heck, Boeing lost a contract with brazil because they found out that the U.S. government was taping the phones of Brazilian politicians.) But, a little context is important here... yes, they hack and spy in order to gain an advantage. But interfering in actual elections of democratic countries is pretty rare these days.

Ummm... not sure why exactly you are claiming that. In fact, both Hillary and Obama complained about the hacking long before election day. In fact, here's one from early October, roughly a month before the election. It points to Obama, Hillary and various Democrat politicians all complaining about Russian hacking and attempts to interfere with the election. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election Actually, the biggest problem with the main stream media is that they allowed Trump's lies to go unchallenged. It wasn't until later during the election that they started doing more fact checking. (And no, doing fact checking on Trump is not some sort of dirty underhanded tactic... its what the media should have been doing all along but didn't.) Just out of curiosity, what exactly was he supposed to do? They already had sanctions against Russia over their actions against Ukraine. Not exactly sure what you're claiming here. The discussions regarding Benghazi wasn't the left wing vs. the CIA, it was the republican party against hilllary. (They ran multiple investigations and found... nothing.)

Oh, its quite possible that if Canada used some version of proportional representation it might lead to stability. Its just that the stability I would be worried about occurring is one of successive Minority Liberal governments propped up by the NDPers, until the sun burns out or Jebus returns. The NDP would never end up in a coalition with the conservatives due to ideological differences. The Liberals would never end up in a coalition with the conservatives because they view each other as their major rivals. This would mean that an NDP/Liberal coalition would make the most sense (due to ideological similarities and past history.) And while I'm sure some on the left wing would be only too happy to have the conservatives kept far from power, some might consider it questionable that the party that gets ~30% of the vote would always get 0% of the power.

There is no daemon associated with proportional voting, that is something you created in your head. Many extremely stable governments around the world run very effectively with proportional voting. Next year will be the 19th parliamentary election of the German Bundestag since the war, during that same time we have already had 22 parliamentary elections in Canada. It is true... there are governments out there who regularly have stable governments under proportional systems. But, a little context is important. Germany basically has 2 "main" parties that have a reasonable attempt at gaining power (plus a collection of smaller parties that will pick up the cumbs.) Canada has 3 main parties (the NDP usually sits in 3rd spot, but it still soaks up a significant number of seats.) Thus, in a Canadian system, a system of proportional representation will more likely end up with a 3-way split of seats with no party forming a majority. It should also be pointed out that the German system doesn't use pure-proportional voting but a mixed system...

Let me help you with get on track then. The number of subjective opinions I've offered without proof: Zero. Zip. Ziltch. You see, I like to back my statements up with references. When I pointed out that incomes are lower under Castro, I gave a reference to a paper published by university researchers. When I suggested that people don't like Castro, I referred to an opinion poll published in the Washington Post, a reputable news source. When I pointed out how Castro was living very well off, I backed it up with a reference to Forbes, another reputable news source. The person who does seem to give opinions without proof is you. Consider all the claims you've made..."People love castro" (no proof given). "Castro doesn't live extravagantly" (no proof given). My comments make perfect sense. Hitler/Mussolini were first rate jerks. If someone tried to say "They weren't all bad, you have to take the good along with the bad", I would point out that whatever "good" that they did (e.g. making the trains run on time) was such a miniscule accomplishment, and the bad things that they did (i.e. killing millions) was so horrendous that whatever "good" that they did could safely be ignored when we label them as jerks. Its the same with Castro... Yes, literacy is high in Cuba, but that is such a minor accomplishment (especially considering that they already had a high literacy rate before the revolution), and the depth of Castro's abuses is so high (killing thousands, stifling free speech, leaving his people poorer than before, etc) that a rational person can safely say "This Castro guy is not worth praising". Actually, I'd say its more an issue of hypocrisy. And once again.... regardless of whatever vitamins/minerals/other nutrients a person gets in their diet... Total Calories are important, and a person must obtain a minimum number of Calories otherwise health problems set in. Cubans under castro were not getting that minimum number of calories. Thus, its proper to label it "malnutrition" if the people were not getting enough calories in their diet. (And its only been due to foreign aid that Cubans have finally been able to get the number of calories they need.) You do realize that when I talk about Cubans eating cats, I'm not suggesting that as some sort of hyperbole, or some poetic statement. I'm actually referring to actually catching and eating house cats. As in "Here kitty kitty! Get in this pot so I can make a stew!" I'm no denying that there are poor people in the U.S. There certainly are people on welfare, and the working poor. Many of those people don't eat right. But its rare that they would have to survive by literally eating cats. Now, you've published a bunch of links, many of which are bunk, but because they are similar kind of bunk I'm reorganizing things a little bit... Ok, so many problems with your little band of quotes... First of all... "iammyownreporter"? "wordpress"? You are seriously considering those as valid sources? You do realize that anyone in the world can create their own web site with a credit card and an extra $100. I tend to post from sites like Universities, or major newspapers. I could have posted from any number of private Anti-Castro blogs and similar sites, but the rational thinker in my says "stick to reputable sites... major newspapers, university research, and the like". You are posting from sites created by nobodies, with "facts" that aren't subject to verification. I think that says a lot about how you came to your Secondly, lets pretend your sites were reputable. Your 'iammyownreporter' site says that "prostitution isn't motivated by harsh conditions". Your "borgenproject" site says "many women depend on prostitution to make a living". These are contradictory. So which is it? Do women need to turn to prostitution or not? And more importantly, why exactly should we trust you or your sources if they have those types of contradictions? Lastly, as I pointed out, your references that talk about child malnutrition in Cuba are irrelevant, because as I said.... Cuba receives substantial food aid. It doesn't matter how well the people are fed now... if they are being fed by handouts (even some from the 'evil' united states), then your country is not a success. But wait a second.... your reference to 'iammyownreporter' specifically debunked the embargo when it pointed out how the embargo wasn't an issue because of all the other countries that do trade with Cuba. So which of your references do you want to stick to... the 'iammyownreporter' one or the 'medicc' one? First of all, you were the one that brought up the cell phone issue. Secondly, its not just cell phones that Cubans lack, its land lines as well. Lastly, phones (both cell and landline) are usually seen as important tools for communication. It allows people to talk to friends and family, improves business communication, can be used for emergency services, etc. Its hardly a luxury, especially not in this day and age. So not having a phone should be seen as pretty significant. After all, more people had phones before the revolution than they do now... Quote But the point is, you claimed that he didn't live lavishly. I showed that you were wrong. Quote Nope. In fact, I've already stated how Trudeau should have handled it. He should have done the same thing as Obama. The Obama statement expressed condolences to the family, but when it came to the people he just said they are in their "thoughts and prayers"; i.e. no claim about whether Cubans would be mourning the death of Castro or celebrating. He also kept things vague with comments about how Castro "altered lives", without specifically saying whether it was for the better or worse. Obama didn't condemn Castro, but he didn't praise him either. It walked the line perfectly... conciliatory enough not to damage fragile Cuban/American relations, while not being over-the-top in its praise of Castro. Trudeau should have taken the same sort of tone... "We express our condolences to the family of Castro... we've had a long history of diplomatic relations and we hope to have more in the future. Peace out. (drop the mic)" Simple, doesn't praise a brutal dictator but doesn't do anything that will anger his successors. Instead, what we got was unnecessary praise which hyped Castro's questionable successes and whitewashed his abuses. Quote I'm quite willing to differentiate the 2 of them. But since Castro was a dictator and had almost absolute control of the island (setting economic and political policy) then any discussion of Cuba's success or failures will revolve around Castro. Quote Once again... never claimed that poor people and/or poverty don't exist in the U.S. ... only that whatever problems exist in the U.S., the problems are not as widespread (i.e. fewer people will have problems getting food in the U.S. as compared to Cuba) and far less severe (e.g. in the U.S., people might resort to going to food banks. In Cuba, people resort to eating cats. I think most rational people would prefer having to go to a food bank over eating cats, even though you can argue that both are cases of being "poor") And one other thing... poor people do exist in the U.S., but many of those receive aid from other Americans. (Food stamps from the government, food banks from charitable organizations.) On the other hand, Cuba can't seem to feed its people without outside aid. So in the U.S. there is a problem with wealth distribution, but that's nowhere near as severe as the situation where Cuba has to beg the rest of the world for aid.

Well, I could have also pointed out that the the stock market and corporate profits are also up. Or that job openings have increased by > 100%. Or that real earning power is up > 4%.(adjusted for inflation). Or that the poverty rate has declined. i.e. there are more than enough positive statistics to pick. Never claimed that the recent economic record was spotless. There is an issue with people stuck in long-term unemployment circumstances (sitting at around ~2 million right now), but that number is dwarfed by the number of new jobs that have been created. Yes, the debt has increased. And its continuing to increase. Never said otherwise. But, the world had just gone through a major recession. And, he's been dealing with a congress who have fought to keep Bush-era tax cuts around. Both of those are going to add to the debt. That's a natural thing to happen during a recession... total taxes decrease as business contracts, and expenditures increase with things like unemployment insurance (and perhaps stimulus spending). Once the economy starts growing, taxes increase, expenditures decrease, and (hopefully) a surplus results.

Well, supposedly there are rules about relatives taking positions that would put them in the line of succession for the presidency, so I doubt she'd get a cabinet post. Not sure what rules they have regarding staff pots that have no 'official' role. Maybe Trump will appoint her to the supreme court.

Yet another questionable pick... Rick Perry for Department of Energy. If you recall, Perry proposed eliminating the department when he ran for president in 2012. On the other hand, during a debate during the primaries, he couldn't remember the name of the department. http://www.npr.org/2016/12/13/505397228/donald-trump-taps-rick-perry-to-head-agency-he-once-forgot So the head of the EPA has spent time fighting against environmental regulations, and the head of the DoE wanted to eliminate the department.

I already admitted some of the success is basically just a rebound from the lows encountered during the recession. But, the unemployment rate is pretty much where its been historically. Jobs were lost during the recession, and now they've come back. An unemployment rate below 5% is pretty close to "full employment". As for the budget "bleeding" several billion... The federal budget is only one aspect of the entire economy. The deficit shouldn't be totally ignored, but responsible management (cutting unneeded spending and a reasonable tax rate), combined with economic growth should make the deficit less of an issue. And that's likely what would have happened had Obama's policies been allowed to continue. On the other hand, Trump's policies of huge tax cuts and increased military spending will make the deficit worse. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-deficit_us_57e33002e4b0e28b2b523c78 (I could also point out that the president does not have complete control over the federal budget, and must work with Congress. Many in congress favored extending Bush-era tax cuts, thus contributing to the deficit.)

Keep in mind that under Obama: - The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.9% and the economy has added ~10 million jobs - The trade deficit has fallen by 24% and exports are up by 27% - There is still a deficit, but it was more than cut in half between when Bush was in office and now Granted, there are other problems (e.g. full time vs. part time employment), and I don't think Obama is completely the cause of those numbers (some of it is likely just a rebound from the recession). But still, things were looking pretty decent. Looks like "managing" the economy (at least what little control the government does have) is possible. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/obamas-numbers-july-2016-update/

Actually he said he was going to "drain the swamp"... he just didn't say where he was going to drain it. I guess he figures into his cabinet is about the best place. But... but... Trump is non-interventionalist! He was against the Libyan and Iraq wars! (Well, he was for the wars first, but when did that little fact get in the way of a Trump supporter?)

Here's a partial list of Trump's cabinet picks and other appointees: VP Pence: Once advocated using government funds for gay conversion therapy (a.k.a. "Pray away the gay") http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html Chief of staff Priebus: Ok, fairly reasonable... probably a bone thrown to establishment republicans Chief Strategist Bannon: Involved with Brietbart, a news source well known for racism and anti-semitism National Security Advisor Flynn: Former military officer who has a habit of passing on conspiracy theory non-sense. (He has a son who is even worse, and he was working for his dad.). You would hope that a national security advisor would be better suited at weeding out nonsense from fact, but there you go. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227 Secretary of State Tillerson: An oil company executive with no political experience .But, he has ties to Russia. (Some republicans may even have reservations about him) http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/donald-trump-rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state/ Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin: Former Goldman Sachs executive. (Hopefully he didn't hear any of the speeches Hillary gave, otherwise he may be tainted!) So much for Trump standing up for the little guy. Attorney General Sessions: Once joked he thought the KKK was alright until he learned they smoked pot. Has fought against activists trying to register black voters. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/19/two-peas-in-a-racist-pod-jeff-sessions-alarming-history-of-opposing-civil-rights_partner/ Secretary of Defense Mattis: another former military officer. He may need a waiver because there is a rule against former generals serving as secretary of defense if they haven't been retired long enough (something that the republicans have started using dirty tricks to streamline the process.) Mattis has other problems, the biggest of which is the fact that he serves on the board of directors of a company called Theranos, a company that is in trouble with both the government and investors (some of whom are suing them.). Mattis was also pushing for the government to use Theranos while he was a general. Bit of a conflict of interest there. http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/technology/james-mattis-trump-theranos/ Head of the EPA Pruitt: A climate change denier. He's also spent a lot of time during his career fighting the EPA. Housing and Urban Development Carson: He initially turned down one appointment because he "didn't think he was qualified". (So, why exactly did he run for president?) Small Business Admin Linda McMahon: Wife of WWE owner Vince McMahon. Something seems really wrong, given that she seems to be the best of his cabinet picks.

Keep in mind that what the CIA said about Iraq, WMD and terrorism may have been slightly different than what the Bush administration claimed. A CIA report that was used to justify the invasion contained various warnings... that some of the intelligence couldn't be confirmed, or depended on unreliable sources. However, many of those warnings were dropped when the information was passed around to higher-ups. So, the CIA may have actually done its due dilligence on Iraq, but it was others in the chain of command who dropped the ball. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3

Keep in mind that while the Liberal's approval ratings have fallen from > 50% to 42%, that is still higher than the percentage of popular vote they got in the last election. Basically it looks like the Liberal core support (i.e. the ones who saw their impractical election promises and still voted for them) is still intact, and what you have are those who thought they'd "Give the Liberals a chance" are the ones saying "OK, we gave them a chance. They disappointed.")