When will populism come to Canada?

[-1=e^ipi]

It's not a meaningless distinction.

 

Imagine if Donald Trump just said 'Vote for me I'm Donald Trump and have awesome hair' and had zero policies during the republican leadership race. People would have laughed at him and rightly criticized his lack of policies.

 

The fact is, only 3 people were in a position to be prime minister last year in a country of 36 million. And one of them got the leadership of the natural governing party of Canada, not by having good policies, or through debate, but through having a famous last name. And since his Prime Mister position required that he gained the leadership position in the first place, basically the highest political position in this country was obtained not through good policies, but through birth right.

 

Overall, Canada has a big issue with birth right compared to meritocracy. We have a birth right Queen, birth right special status for people who's ancestors were in North America 11000 years ago, birth right hiring practices that give preference to people based on what sex or race they were born as, and now a birth right prime minister. Wonderful.

 

I'd prefer to live in a society where people gain their position through merit and hard work.

Edited December 7, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, hernanday said:

No because you can double count, and they are not all random, some samples had more liberals and dems than are in the gp.

 

If the size of the sample is small relative to size of the population, each observation is effectively independent. That is the assumption that goes into the mathematical model to create those confidence intervals in the first place. Take it up with a statistics book if you have an issue with it.

[H10]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

If the size of the sample is small relative to size of the population, each observation is effectively independent. That is the assumption that goes into the mathematical model to create those confidence intervals in the first place. Take it up with a statistics book if you have an issue with it.

Which stats book told you, you can combine slanted stats together and get an accurate sample?  BY your logic I could sampe just rural voters and get an accurate number.

[-1=e^ipi]

44 minutes ago, hernanday said:

BY your logic I could sampe just rural voters and get an accurate number.

No, we are talking representative samples, not non-representative samples.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dre said:

So you cant come up with a single useful question then? 

So you aren't actually interested in any kind of serious discussion then?

[dre]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

So you aren't actually interested in any kind of serious discussion then?

Why don't you just answer the simple question? Because you cant.

I'm just asking for one single example of a question to which the wrong answer would indicate that a person is a threat to canadian values, that the person would be dumb enough to answer "incorrectly".

Anyone with half a brain is going to pass that survey. Not only that but immigration is all about social media. Within a couple of months the questions will be posted on sites like this... http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/index.php along with instructions on how to make sure you don't fail to pass the survey. 

There are also a wide range of immigration services out there that assist potential immigrants with their applications. They will simply train people on the questionnaire.

If you want to spend more money on making sure we get good immigrants, then it could be spent a lot better.

Use it to expand on this process...

Quote

Security & Criminality Checks: 
A part of the b/ground checks is the 'Security Check'. It commences after our med results are submitted to the CHC. This is a major activity -mainly concerning our 'safe inclusion' into the Canadian Soil; vis-a-vis, Political, Socio-Econmical, Anti-Social disposition, perceived Threat to Canada's integrity etc. This gets us the SDEC, CDEC & SECCRIM. 

This is a serious & time-consuming stage, involving many agencies, including CSIS, Interpol, NASC, Database Checking & touch-base with Local Police. Many things are considered here... the No. of countries visited, Applicant coming from 'certain' countries, ex-Servicemen [including Law Enforcement services], Prolonged stay in a country w/out sufficient docs to prove cause, frequent traveling to certain nations, your *Name (?), Inter-Religion/Nationality Marriages etc. 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dre said:

Why don't you just answer the simple question? Because you cant.

Have I ever written anything which would suggest to you that I'm a psychologist or that that putting together personality questionnaires is a particular skillset I own?

The number of companies using these tools continues to grow. It's now at 62%, and they're not doing it because they like to waste money They're doing it because it tests for the type of personality traits they have found, and proven, are more likely to give them the kind of employee they want, with the temperament they want. The tests are designed specifically so that the applicant can't figure out what the right answer ought to be.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2015/05/28/interview-test-prep-6-common-personality-assessments-and-how-employers-use-them/#5461b27c6c21

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-personality-test-could-stand-in-the-way-of-your-next-job-1429065001

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

magine if Donald Trump just said 'Vote for me I'm Donald Trump and have awesome hair' and had zero policies during the republican leadership race. People would have laughed at him and rightly criticized his lack of policies.

Leadership races are internal politics. It has nothing to do with the public. They would have laughed at him because the primaries in the US gets so much attention. It's utterly irrelevant to the election though. If they didn't outline any policies whatsoever during the primaries or leadership conventions, that means squat when they have a full policy platform created for the election.

[H10]

6 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

No, we are talking representative samples, not non-representative samples.

You are falsely assuming they are!

[-1=e^ipi]

9 hours ago, hernanday said:

You are falsely assuming they are!

No, I'm claiming that they are not, since people are lying, which explains the discrepancy between polls and observations (Brexit, Trump). But if one wants to test if they are, one can assume the null hypothesis (that they are representative), use that assumption to justify the standard models used in polls, use that to combine multiple polls, then see if observations are within the confidence interval of the combined poll results. If they are not, then that would suggest that the null hypothesis is not true.

[-1=e^ipi]

17 hours ago, cybercoma said:

I gave you hundreds of policies and a cataloguing of whether they've been kept or not. You narrowing it down to "during the leadership race" is a meaningless distinction.

No, I started with the claim of with respect to the leadership race. You are the one that keeps purposely ignoring that relevant detail.

 

Explain why the internal leadership campaign has any relevance whatsoever.

Maybe because policies should matter with respect to governing the country and thus policies should be discussed and debated when choosing a leader for a major federal party. Choosing people who don't care about policies is not only dangerous and stupid, but it throws out meritocracy.

[H10]

21 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

It's not a meaningless distinction.

 

Imagine if Donald Trump just said 'Vote for me I'm Donald Trump and have awesome hair' and had zero policies during the republican leadership race. People would have laughed at him and rightly criticized his lack of policies.

 

The fact is, only 3 people were in a position to be prime minister last year in a country of 36 million. And one of them got the leadership of the natural governing party of Canada, not by having good policies, or through debate, but through having a famous last name. And since his Prime Mister position required that he gained the leadership position in the first place, basically the highest political position in this country was obtained not through good policies, but through birth right.

 

Overall, Canada has a big issue with birth right compared to meritocracy. We have a birth right Queen, birth right special status for people who's ancestors were in North America 11000 years ago, birth right hiring practices that give preference to people based on what sex or race they were born as, and now a birth right prime minister. Wonderful.

 

I'd prefer to live in a society where people gain their position through merit and hard work.

You going to take away all the farms from the farmers getting free land for being here 100-200 years ago

[H10]

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

No, I'm claiming that they are not, since people are lying, which explains the discrepancy between polls and observations (Brexit, Trump). But if one wants to test if they are, one can assume the null hypothesis (that they are representative), use that assumption to justify the standard models used in polls, use that to combine multiple polls, then see if observations are within the confidence interval of the combined poll results. If they are not, then that would suggest that the null hypothesis is not true.

Your argument is the polls are inaccurate, yet you think combining inaccurate polls can give you an accurate poll, even though there are different polling methods used!\

There were accurate polls showing Clinton with the 48-46% lead over trump.  This is the result, she lost the swing states as polls showed could go either way.  People didn't lie to the pollsters.  Trump brought in unexpected voters, Clinton scared of traditional democratic voters in swing states (african americans, progressives, white females, working class white men) in favor of moderate republicans.  There are more progressives than any other group so she lost because she ran as a republican light.  I have no clue why she would think that was a good idea.  The republican lights got hammered by the tea party for the last 7 years and trump, cruz and carson hammmered them all in the primary.  Dems lost because they ran the worse canddiate possible. A moderate republican called Hilary Clinton to face off against a tea party candidate.  Clinton's numbers in large african american cities like milwaukee, detroit, philadelphia, miami, tampa, charlotte were way way down.  And she needed their votes to win but ignored them.  Trump offered them a new deal, Clinton offered themnothing but said she would give the HBCU's a check.  Ok, but what about the other 85% who is not students?

Edited December 8, 2016 by H10

[Canadianjim]

You can call it populism but I call it fascism. Trump is a classic fascist. 

[Canadianjim]

On 2016-12-08 at 6:00 AM, hernanday said:

Your argument is the polls are inaccurate, yet you think combining inaccurate polls can give you an accurate poll, even though there are different polling methods used!\

There were accurate polls showing Clinton with the 48-46% lead over trump.  This is the result, she lost the swing states as polls showed could go either way.  People didn't lie to the pollsters.  Trump brought in unexpected voters, Clinton scared of traditional democratic voters in swing states (african americans, progressives, white females, working class white men) in favor of moderate republicans.  There are more progressives than any other group so she lost because she ran as a republican light.  I have no clue why she would think that was a good idea.  The republican lights got hammered by the tea party for the last 7 years and trump, cruz and carson hammmered them all in the primary.  Dems lost because they ran the worse canddiate possible. A moderate republican called Hilary Clinton to face off against a tea party candidate.  Clinton's numbers in large african american cities like milwaukee, detroit, philadelphia, miami, tampa, charlotte were way way down.  And she needed their votes to win but ignored them.  Trump offered them a new deal, Clinton offered themnothing but said she would give the HBCU's a check.  Ok, but what about the other 85% who is not students?

You chose to ignore the original intent of the  framers with the EC. Now America qualifies as a failed state. America used to criticize nations with undemocratic elections.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Canadianjim said:

You can call it populism but I call it fascism. Trump is a classic fascist. 

No, he's not. I think you need to learn that Fascism is more than simply a handy pejorative term to fling at people you don't like.

[Canadianjim]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

No, he's not. I think you need to learn that Fascism is more than simply a handy pejorative term to fling at people you don't like.

Trump's not a fascist?

Then you will have no trouble telling me the difference between.

Hitler attacking the media and Trump attacking the media

Hitler attacking the establishment and Trump attacking the establishment

Hitler blaming other countries for Germany's woes like the  versailles treaty,France etc and trump blaming China and Mexico…nafta 

Hitler promising to restore Germany to her former glory and trump promising to make America great again

Hitler uniting people by targeting Jews and Communists.Trump by targeting Mexicans and Muslims//

\

What's the difference? Describe it for me.

 

 

[Argus]

Just now, Canadianjim said:

Trump's not a fascist?

Then you will have no trouble telling me the difference between.

Hitler attacking the media and Trump attacking the media

Hitler attacking the establishment and Trump attacking the establishment

Hitler blaming other countries for Germany's woes like the  versailles treaty,France etc and trump blaming China and Mexico…nafta 

Hitler promising to restore Germany to her former glory and trump promising to make America great again

Hitler uniting people by targeting Jews and Communists.Trump by targeting Mexicans and Muslims//

\

What's the difference? Describe it for me.

Hitler liked dogs. Does that mean everyone who likes dogs is a Fascist?

Trump is hardly the first guy to be elected in the US or anywhere else claiming to have a new program which will make the country so much better. Lots of those on the Left have done so, too. Lots of politicians attack the media, too, and many, especially on the Left, attack the establishment. What you are ignoring is that Trump has no interest in unifying production under the state's guidance, as one example, nor has he or the Republican party ever expressed interest in expanding the state's control over all elements of the nation. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[Canadianjim]

So glorifying the state, ultra nationalism, ant-immigrant,  racism, authoritarianism isn't fascism?

By the way. Most people are busy making a living. Politics is part time for them ,usually during elections. However there are people who live their rabid ideology 24/7. 365 days a year./ Who believe strongly in their cause. People who make it a point to look carefully. at who represents their interests.

There is a reason why the neo nazis, KKK and white supremacists all enthusiastically support Donald Trump. For you to dismiss that is simply absurd. You have to ask yourself why?

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Canadianjim

[DogOnPorch]

Manson endorsed Trump. I doubt Trump will be murdering starlets in the Hollywood Hills in response.

Edited December 18, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Canadianjim said:

So glorifying the state, ultra nationalism, ant-immigrant,  racism, authoritarianism isn't fascism?

They're elements of facism. But the most important element of fascism is expanding state control over the economy and the nation, into every element of life. There is nothing of that in Trump's bloviating, and it would be anathema to the Republicans. In fact, some of his appointments to cabinet seem intent on eliminating the very departments they've been put in charge of.

[Canadianjim]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

They're elements of facism. But the most important element of fascism is expanding state control over the economy and the nation, into every element of life. There is nothing of that in Trump's bloviating, and it would be anathema to the Republicans. In fact, some of his appointments to cabinet seem intent on eliminating the very departments they've been put in charge of.

"Is that why one of his first acts were using the " states"  money to bribe carrier in to staying" Is that not state control? And he isn't even president yet.

The destruction you refer is based on ideology. Not on business sense. 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Canadianjim said:

"Is that why one of his first acts were using the " states"  money to bribe carrier in to staying" Is that not state control? And he isn't even president yet.

The destruction you refer is based on ideology. Not on business sense. 

If you're going to call using the state's money to bribe a business into staying/leaving a jurisdiction you are going to have to first admit that all Canadian provinces are led by Fascists and have been for the past twenty years.

And the ideology of fascism would want to expand the role of government departments, not eliminate them. If he were a fascist he would want a bigger education department with more power, and not appoint someone who wants to eliminate it and doesn't believe in public education.

[Canadianjim]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

If you're going to call using the state's money to bribe a business into staying/leaving a jurisdiction you are going to have to first admit that all Canadian provinces are led by Fascists and have been for the past twenty years.

And the ideology of fascism would want to expand the role of government departments, not eliminate them. If he were a fascist he would want a bigger education department with more power, and not appoint someone who wants to eliminate it and doesn't believe in public education.

There is no single element that makes an ideology. Let me give you an example. One of the  tenants of socialism is wealth redistribution. The  blues state in america receive less federal dollars than they pay and red states pay less than they receive. That is called wealth redistribution. Would i be so blind as to call America a socialist nation because of that  one issue? Trump has most of the elements of fascism as least as it applies to pre war europe. That is documented. Thats is not MY opinion. In fact expert opinions dating as far back as the  50's (eric hoffer)describe clearly the rise of fascism and what that entailed. I would be happy to post for you several articles by experts that were written long before Trump was known as well as after.

[?Impact]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

But the most important element of fascism is expanding state control over the economy and the nation, into every element of life.

Historically fascist states have allowed significant private business interests to thrive. As long as those business interests served the the goals of the state, they would be allowed to grow and would be promoted by the state through lucrative tax incentives, acquisition of services, and even direct investment. There is no incompatibility between private education and a fascist state, in fact it would grow and thrive in a fascist state. Corporatism was a significant part of early 20th century fascist states, with strong domestic mega corporations emerging. It was international investment and trade that was discouraged, with protectionist measures put in place to build strong domestic corporations. Trump's economic policies are very much in-line with previous fascist states.