Bryan

I never said nor implied anything of the sort.

That's exactly what happens, time and time again.

They have more credibility on that topic than most mainstream sources in Canada.

It's almost the opposite in this case though. The massive increase in government funding has been accompanied by reduced efficiency and hindered access to care.

Not being indoctrinated tends even out what you might or might not lean towards.

His ability to expose the DNC's corruption?

Not at all. An education is important. You just need to understand that when you read that more college graduates have liberal leaning ideologies, the education itself is not the reason for that.

The post you responded to was my account of the difference between private and public delivery in Canada.

Indeed. They need to filter out the illegal aliens who managed to register to vote. Then we'd see what the legitimate popular vote really was.

We aren't south of the border.

Yes, Colleges are indoctrination camps for liberal ideologies.

Not even remotely true. The goal is to get published and secure funding.

No one went belly up when the clinic was privately run either. They just got better health care.

That is patently false.

They only know if the service they are getting is up to their expectations. If they have ever received privately delivered care, then they certainly would see a stark difference in efficiency. As an example, one of my favourite sports medicine clinics* used to be privately owned and run, but it was bought out by the province and is now entirely public. Two things were apparent to the user: 1) Substantially more money was being spent (renovations, expansions, new furniture, more staff, etc) and 2) The efficiency and quality of the service provided dropped off a cliff. * when you and your kids all play and coach contact sports, you tend to see sports medicine specialists regularly enough to be able to see the difference in the facilities.

Easy to say, tough to pay for. The reason that those professionals are unemployed (or under employed) is we ration our care based on ability/willingness to pay. We don't present it as an ability to pay issue the way that we would private care, but it still is. Waiting lists for surgery or diagnostics don't happen because facilities are at capacity, they happen because the budgets don't allow for the capacity to be met.

CBC absolutely is a state broadcaster. It's owned by the state, it's funded by the state, its board is appointed by the state, its very reason for being is mandated by the state.

I just want to commend the moderators for allowing this conversation to continue, and not complaining about drift. The topic is flowing just like a real conversation, and the discourse here is richer for it.

That's true. 46.1% voted for Trump, only 39.5% voted for Trudeau. That's more an indictment on the US system's lack of real choice though. Almost 40% is really high threshold when there are five parties sitting in parliament. You point still stands, a greater percentage of American voters cast their ballots for Trump, than the percentage of Canadian voters did for Trudeau. When you listen to the post-election reactions in the mainstream media in both countries, you'd think the opposite was true.

Indeed. Germany is more than double the population of Canada, yet in terms of area it is smaller than Newfoundland. It is population density on an entirely different scale.

Outraged? No. Mildly annoyed, yet not at all surprised.

Last I heard, Pallister had missed almost no sitting days in the house. Compare that to Trudeau who has missed almost 70% of the votes. Should I be outraged?

This is a complete non-issue.

Both of those terms are used primarily to insult people who DO NOT hold those views by implying that they do.

Wilfred Laurier, William Lyon mackenzie King, Joe Clark, and John Diefenbaker each won the seat count while losing the popular vote. You've got that backwards. The electoral college did its job to prevent one state (California) from disenfranchising the entire rest of the country.