Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/03/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Yesterday, she made headlines by being the first candidate to "concede" defeat in the face of what's obvious - that, she's not going to win. So, what does she advise people? She says......to stop a PC or an NDP majority. Now, let me ask you: who do you think Wynne will prefer to win if the choices are only between the PC and the NDP? Of course she'll prefer the one closest to her vision - the NDP! Don't they share quite the same platform? Especially when it comes to their spending spree plan? What Wynne's not telling us, is to not make it a PC majority! Period. She has to mention the NDP in that same speech, to seem impartial...... to not scare us with the spectre of an NDP-Liberal coalition. Wynne didn't make that speech for nothing. Yes, she's conceded......but her narrative is to try to stop a PC or NDP majority. That speech of hers could make people vote Liberals just to stop those majority - but if everyone's going to think that they're voting to stop any of those majority - and they all vote Liberals in an effort to do just that - Wynne might suddenly find herself in power again! That's the gamble she's making with that speech. That people get so scared of either an NDP or PC majority that they'll vote Liberals. We just might wake up with a sudden bounced up for the Liberals, or even worst - have Wynne back up on Queen again. Don't get fooled by that speech. Wynne has nothing to lose......but everything to gain. Spread this on social media! Warn people about the danger of falling for that line. If people want REAL change - don't vote for the Liberals, or it's look-alike, the NDP! You've got to make it a PC majority!
  2. 1 point
    Statement of fact unsupported by evidence. I personally always know why I buy something. I don't know anyone who is any different in that regard.
  3. 1 point
    I just came back from traveling to Norway. Norway certainly does have tax rates and plentiful social programs. Everything is also very expensive, and people make higher salaries. Part of the reason Norway is able to do what it does is the wealth generated from oil. But a bigger reason is that it has a culture of good management of their national resources and money. They pay attention to the details and the numbers and don't let things get out of hand. It's a very different culture from what you have in Canada or America, where budgeting is done based on emotions and 3 second talking points, and the only time anyone cares about the deficit is when they can use it as a smear against the other party. High taxes and high services like in Norway can work, if you actually have the discipline and competence and culture to manage it well (this situation doesn't come close to existing anywhere outside Scandinavia and maybe Germany). The US has $21 trillion debt ($66k/person), Canada has a $1.4 trillion debt ($40k/person), but Norway has an accumulated government fund of $1 trillion rather than a debt, which works out to $200k/person. Pull that kind of money management off in Canada or the US and we can start talking about entrusting the government with more of people's money to provide better services. But even in a country as well managed as Norway, where "socialism" can work, it still comes at the price of sacrificing innovation and entrepreneurship compared to much messier places like America.
  4. 1 point
    How far right have I moved? I mean, you probably know from these forums. I'm still firmly against what anyone in the US would call "social conservatism". Anything to do with religion and moralizing, count me out. But I guess on some issues like for example immigration, I used to be an open borders kind of person, whereas now I think it should be limited to probably lower numbers than now, and criteria strictly set for the benefit of the receiving country. I used to be 100% for environmentalism everything else be damned, but now I understand the importance of balancing conservation of the environment with economic realities and needs. I used to be all for change for the sake of change, whereas now I also understand the value of established traditions and institutions and the potential downside of disrupting them. For example, if you asked me 10 years ago about how I feel about Canada having a queen, I would have ranted at you about how the whole idea seems against the ideals of equality and democracy and what not, but today I'd just be like, well, it's worked pretty well for a long time so why change it?
  5. 1 point
    The key phrase is "as seen from the perspective of Europe". Nothing against Europe, but as human beings, they have the same tendency to judge others according to their own values and norms. European values and norms don't apply to the US system. Not saying I totally disagree with what you're saying, but your approach might be wanting for a more objective approach perhaps?
  6. 1 point
    It seems that the government has some say in that though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status#Ontario
  7. 1 point
    That, and poking at Trump in public events! It's almost like as if Trudeau is sabotaging the negotiations for failure. Maybe, so he can further use the anti-Trump sentiment? It's now Trump against us all Canadians? That'll be the narrative? And all Canadians will unite behind our PM, seeing that Trump is being a "bully" and "hurting" us? Could that be a likely agenda here? Setting the stage for the coming election?
  8. 1 point
    You mean like all that NON trade related stuff the liberals insisted on putting into NAFTA, that really has nothing to do with trade between Canada and the US, that somehow the US agreed to....and we are hung up on a time limit to the agreement.
  9. 1 point
    Italy and Greece is HARDLY fiscally responsible, and is hardly "so called" "right wing".
  10. 1 point
    No, my suggestions is to stay calm and patient, and attempt to negotiate with Mr. Trump. Do not go on the attack. Trudeau should have figured out a way to get into that meeting, rather than storm off. He has no experience, thus no idea how to negotiate. And why would he... like a high school boy got to be the PM.
  11. 1 point
    I never ever got comments like this one. It makes 0 sense. NDP - running a deficit, seemingly no one cares Liberals - running a deficit, seemingly no one cares PCs - will be most likely running a deficit, yet those who support the NDP/Liberals LOVE chomping at the bits here when the PCs run a deficit.
  12. 1 point
    Almost done. Technically speaking the real traitors are the socialists in Canada who voted in Trudeau and potentially the NDP in Ontario.
  13. 1 point
    I would think quite a few well educated business owners and entrepreneurs were also listening.
  14. 1 point
    Yes, I think Ford's inexperience in such debates was apparent. However, he did manage to speak to audience in a way that they could understand. On the matter of a costed platform, it's not easy putting one together when you haven't seen the books. And knowing the creative accounting the Liberals have perfected, no doubt it's one big mess.


  • Create New...