CanucksCorner.com Forums

Mëds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 4:38 pm I think her downfall was that she spoke in legalese, repeating the same statement 3 different ways in an effort to sound complicated and intelligent.....at the end of the day she often spoke for long periods without saying anything at all. This is, of course, something that politicians are generally great at. Trump doe sit all the time, the difference is that he actually makes it seem like he said something of importance.

When Trump rambles unintelligibly, it would be just as cringe-worthy as Harris but for three things. One, there generally IS a point somewhere -- Harris often said nothing substantively, whereas Trump *usually* has something in there. Two, Trump's ramblings are often humorous. Everyone likes a chuckle. Harris isn't funny when she rambles -- she says vacuous things as if she were profound. Three, Trump's ramblings are part of who he is -- its his personality, his authentic self, and its a very specific "Trump-ramble." But Harris' babbling is generic -- we all knew that girl in college with a semester of philosophy, a poster of the "Kiss" or the "Scream," and a bong.

Is this true of Poilievre?

His position on taxation is that the middle- and working-classes should take on all of the tax burden for society because if we try to tax the super-wealthy or corporations they'll leave Canada?

Where does Poilievre stand on abortion? He previously supported Pro-life. Then in June 2021, he voted against pro-life Bill C-233. He keeps flip flopping. I understand, he’s Catholic?

Are these true of Poilievre:

- voted to ban abortions
- voted to cancel Veterans
Disability
- voted against workers rights
- voted AGAINST housing
initiatives
- voted to raise the retirement age
- voted to slash OAS/CPP
- voted for scabs

Just doing some research on the last time we put the conservatives (Harper) in charge of Canada. What are your thoughts on these complaints of the Harper’s Conservatives rule at the time:

- sold Nexen to China
- Inco to Brazil
- Stelco to the USA
- Nortel to Sweden
- Falconbridge to Switzerland
- Canada’s Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia
- Entered a 31 year FIPPA with China
- Reduced corporate taxes by $60 billion
- slashed healthcare budget to Canadians by $36 billion
- added 176.4 billion to Canada’s national debt

Bannon on the 51st State. Some interesting idea of what Trump may be thinking about. Group Trump's comments on Canada, Greenland and Panama together a fortress North America against Chinese and/or Russian control.

https://x.com/brianlilley/status/189153 ... gIRtg&s=19

Topper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 11:58 am Bannon on the 51st State. Some interesting idea of what Trump may be thinking about. Group Trump's comments on Canada, Greenland and Panama together a fortress North America against Chinese and/or Russian control.

https://x.com/brianlilley/status/189153 ... gIRtg&s=19

He makes some compelling points, especially about securing the arctic. I think there may be a deal there as long as Canada remains sovereign. I am all for much closer economic ties and for building up our military in conjunction with the Americans, to make our north secure. I think we can achieve this through negotiations and still maintain our sovereignty, but I guess we're about to see what happens.

I don't think there's any serious intention to make Canada or parts of Canada part of the United States--unless there were provinces that overwhelmingly wanted that and then it would be a sticky wicket.

But Canada, Greenland, Panama, they are all part and parcel of the same thing. The US is worried about its security, control of the seas, dominance in the hemisphere, and Chinese and or Russian incursions. This becomes more important as Russia and China pose a greater threat and Europe can't recognize this threat it poses to itself (Vance's points).

Its no wonder that the United States is getting proactive about the places closest to home (the Western hemisphere). The other places in the world I suspect will see the US deepening its ties are the pacific rim and India. For American security and prosperity, these places are far more important than Europe, which is something I think the Europeans might not appreciate.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:34 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 4:38 pm I think her downfall was that she spoke in legalese, repeating the same statement 3 different ways in an effort to sound complicated and intelligent.....at the end of the day she often spoke for long periods without saying anything at all. This is, of course, something that politicians are generally great at. Trump doe sit all the time, the difference is that he actually makes it seem like he said something of importance.

When Trump rambles unintelligibly, it would be just as cringe-worthy as Harris but for three things. One, there generally IS a point somewhere -- Harris often said nothing substantively, whereas Trump *usually* has something in there. Two, Trump's ramblings are often humorous. Everyone likes a chuckle. Harris isn't funny when she rambles -- she says vacuous things as if she were profound. Three, Trump's ramblings are part of who he is -- its his personality, his authentic self, and its a very specific "Trump-ramble." But Harris' babbling is generic -- we all knew that girl in college with a semester of philosophy, a poster of the "Kiss" or the "Scream," and a bong.

Hahaha. That hit the nail on the head.

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:36 am Is this true of Poilievre?

His position on taxation is that the middle- and working-classes should take on all of the tax burden for society because if we try to tax the super-wealthy or corporations they'll leave Canada?

Do you think the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage than everyone else?

Is it fair to penalize someone for being successful?

The wealthy, while able to find ways to shelter portions of their income from taxation, already do pay more. It's simple math.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 3:48 pm I don't think there's any serious intention to make Canada or parts of Canada part of the United States--unless there were provinces that overwhelmingly wanted that and then it would be a sticky wicket.

But Canada, Greenland, Panama, they are all part and parcel of the same thing. The US is worried about its security, control of the seas, dominance in the hemisphere, and Chinese and or Russian incursions. This becomes more important as Russia and China pose a greater threat and Europe can't recognize this threat it poses to itself (Vance's points).

Do you have a link to Vance's points on that?

Just wondering if that statement means that Europe can't recognize the threat that Russia and China post to Europe. "This threat it poses to itself".....is that Europe posing a threat to itself that it doesn't see?

Not trying to pick on grammar. I personally think that some of the EU's immigration policies have left them open to being "conquered" from within without even realizing it......so a threat to itself. But they also don't seem to have the will to field a military that can defend Europe.....so the whole Russia/China thing.

Shouldn’t the majority who is also the majority of usage of all things … pay the majority…

It's clearly about the millions of migrants they've let in

Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:40 pm

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:36 am Is this true of Poilievre?

His position on taxation is that the middle- and working-classes should take on all of the tax burden for society because if we try to tax the super-wealthy or corporations they'll leave Canada?

Do you think the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage than everyone else?

Is it fair to penalize someone for being successful?

The wealthy, while able to find ways to shelter portions of their the income from taxation, already do pay more. It's simple math.

Lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains tend to benefit the wealthy. So generally they will pay a lower percent of tax on their income.

rats19 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 9:58 pm Shouldn’t the majority who is also the majority of usage of all things … pay the majority…

So smokers and obese people should pay more for healthcare?