-1=e^ipi

Just google it. http://infolocata.com/mirovia/irrefutable-proof-that-santa-is-odin/

Trump had same votes per capita as Romney. While Trump may have attracted votes from say the rust belt white working class, he lost votes relative to Romney as well. A lot of conservatives didn't vote for him (example: Ben Shapiro, Romney, Kasich, etc.) and he did very poorly with Mormons. Margin of error for 1 poll, sure. But not from multiple polls combined consistently underestimating brexit / trump support. The discrepancy was probably due to stigma. There have been lots of uncharismatic popular leaders throughout the years. Your whole charisma explains everything argument is nonsense. Also, how does one objectively measure charisma?

Christmas for the most part is cultural expropriation of various pagan holidays by Christians. Particularly Yule and Saturnalia. Yes, there was St. Nicholas day of December 12, but that came centuries later. Christmas as we know it is an amalgamation of many different Holidays that occurred during December.

To be fair, most of the origins of Santa clause stems from Norse culture, not christian culture. In particular, Santa Claus is based highly on Odin.

I disagree. I think that if there is a social stigma for taking a political position, then people will lie to polls. There was a social stigma to supporting Brexit and there was a social stigma to supporting Trump. Which is why polls were inaccurate. Expect the same thing with LePen. I like how we are talking such a tiny difference in popular support let to you it's all charisma! Victories of Trudeau/Trump couldn't have anything to do with the unpopularities of who they were running up against.

Romney in 2012 had 19.4% votes per capita. Trump in 2016 had 19.4% votes per capita. Main difference was Hillary Clinton lost votes per capita relative to Obama. Seems that it was more Hilary Clinton being super unpopular, rather than Trump being popular. I think if Trump ran in 2012 and Romney ran in 2016, Trump would have lost, Romney would have won. Trudeau 2015 - 39.5% of the vote Harper 2011 - 39.6% of the vote I guess Harper in 2011 was even more charismatic. Also, I guess 39.5% of the people that voted all Canadians.

Here's an alternative theory. Every 8-10 years the people decide 'it's time for a change' regardless of the party or the leaders and until then they don't really want to change. Seems to be pretty good at explaining observations. So maybe if Trudeau ran in 2008 or 2011 he would have lost, and if ignatieff or dion ran in 2015 they would have won. Or if Romney ran in 2016, he would have won. Or perhaps it was because people were fed up with Harper and disliked his policies. So NDP voters strategically voted for the liberals to get rid of Harper. The fact that Trudeau was behind in the polls for most of the election and it took him so long to get ahead despite going up against unpopular Harper suggests that Trudeau wasn't the best candidate to beat Harper.

Happy Holidays!

Turkey has the second largest army in NATO.

What part of 'leadership race' is hard to understand? The above is with respect to the election, not the leadership race. Edit: sorry, you weren't replying to me. Trudeau won the leadership race overwhelmingly on essentially a platform of no policies due to his last name, despite being up against opponents that were actually running on policies. And it wasn't like he squeaked by with like 55% support on a final round of voting, he won overwhelmingly on the first round. This is highly unprecedented. You look at various leadership conventions for major political parties, be it in Canada or abroad, and in order to win, Candidates have to run on policy like 100% of the time.

I wish Trudeau understood this point. That he won the election because Harper was unpopular, not because he was super awesome and liked by everyone. Instead, Trudeau thinks that he had to work 2-3 times as hard as anyone else because of his last name and that we was elected due to how wonderful his policies were. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-uses-bbc-interview-to-issue-sharpest-retort-yet-to-harper-conservative-attack-ads Like the fact is, despite the high unpopularity of Harper, and despite leading Canada's natural governing party. Trudeau was behind in the polls until the last few weeks of the election. If the liberals chose a better Candidate like Martha Hall Findlay, I think that the liberals would have been ahead in the polls even before the election, and easily broken the 40% popular vote.

Yes it does. But the effect of a tax on CO2 emissions isn't as simple as 'all costs are passed on to consumers". In reality, the tax will increase the price paid by consumers and reduce the price received by producers and the amount of the tax burden that goes to consumers vs producers depends on the elasticities of demand and supply. And since demand and supply are not completely elastic, there is an overall lower level of CO2 emissions.

Still with respect to the election. Still see no one finding policies Trudeau had during the leadership race. Why? Cause he didn't have any.

During the ELECTION. I said during the LEADERSHIP race. Come on, name some. You have legalization of marijuana. What else?

Cool, can you list some of Trudeau's policies for the leadership race then?

@ Dre - I said with respect to the leadership contest, not the election. Name policies he had before getting the leadership in 2013.

O'Leary doesn't gain as much profits by pursuing political office. If you look at O'Leary's justification for why he started considering running, a lot of it had to do with talking to engineering students who wanted to go to the states due to lack of economic prospects in Canada. Seems more like altruism as opposed to selfishness that is his motivation. I know this is difficult for you to believe dre, since it can be hard to grasp that some people can genuinely support more libertarian economic policy on altruistic grounds and since it is very convenient for you to be able to dismiss those that argue for such policies as doing it out of selfishness.

No he had policies. He wanted to build a wall, he wanted to ban muslims, he wanted to lower corporate taxes, he wanting to cancel the TPP, etc. The only policy Trudeau had was legalization of marijuana. And he was against legalization of marijuana in 2012 and only changed his mind after deciding to run for leadership. So he basically decided to run for leadership on 0 policies. Just say the world middle class a lot and play identity politics.

You could always play fetch with dogkin. I don't think that's disrespectful.

Like Trudeau will say whatever to get elected and has constantly changed his policies to whatever he thinks is most popular. In 2013, oh changing the national anthem to make it more inclusive, in 2016, oh suddenly I've changed my mind, let's make it more inclusive. 2013-2014, we need to balance the budget, the conservatives; 2015 Uhh... actually deficits are good and we need a 10 billion dollar deficit to fund infrastructure; 2016 actually it's a 30 billion deficit and most of that deficit is not due to infrastructure spending. 2013-2014, the carbon tax was a terrible idea and we will not implement it. 2015, we'll let the provinces cut emissions in the way that we want and we won't force anything on them. 2016, nevermind, we realized that our original policy was dumb, so now we will implement a tax unilaterally if the provinces and territories do not do so. 2015, we will bring in 25000 refugees by the end of 2015. Cause we care so much! 2016, actually that time frame was completely unfeasible and we just made it up to get elected. 2015, 2015 will be the last election with a first past the post system. 2016, actually we may not change the electoral system. We only supported changing it when Harper was in power. We don't want a referendum or proportional representation. Preferably we would like to unilaterally implement STV or alternative voting so we remain in absolute power forever. On the other hand, O'Leary supports policies such as having a mixed healthcare system or getting rid of supply management, not because he thinks it is popular, but because he thinks it is right.

No, Trudeau is extremely unique as a politician. Name one other major party leader in a western country that won the leadership race on essentially a platform of no policies?

Pretty sure Trudeau fits in the category of populist. Or are you referring to a specific type of populist? O'Leary is not a populist at all. Also, I doubt he will throw his name in for the CPC. Chances are he will endorse Bernier. Edit: Okay, there are many definitions of populism. So the term 'populism' isn't exactly helpful. For example, if you define populism as one that supports policies that are popular, then Trudeau is populist while O'Leary is not. But if you were to define populism as one who cares about the concerns of ordinary citizens, then O'Leary is (arguably) while Trudeau is not.

In case it wasn't clear, I tend to poke fun at the SJWs, thus the usage of 'it's 2016' and 'super regressive' in this thread. Makes the thread more entertaining. But I still support adding more gender options. ... Are you referring to bill C-16 and the Jordan Peterson incident? Cause that's not what this thread is about. This is about increasing the gender options for this forum. It's not about obliging others to use pronouns they don't want to. You can call me he, she, they or potatoman for all I care. It won't trigger me at all. And with respect to non-binary people. We have people that worship a 2000 year old magic jewish zombie who was his own father and who died for the sins that we somehow obtained because a talking snake told a magic rib lady to eat a magic fruit. We have people that believe the moon was split into 2 and believe that a prophet ascended to heaven on a flying horse 1400 years ago. But it's totally the non-binary people that are being ridiculous and childish...

I'll be sure to let my non-binary former roommate know that she doesn't exit.