Political Roundtable Part XV

[TGW]

Yes, and 1-2 more trumps are going to lose. Trump himself is going to lose in 2020. He has a low 30's approval rating, and it's going down fast.

[Wizardspride]

Transcript of Coach Popovich's comments on Trump

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

Saw this hilarious list in the Current Affairs board, thought it might be a handy reference.

Saw this post on a facebook video:

The Five Stages of Trump Supporter Denial:

1. It's a total lie, never happened, fake news.
2. It happened, but it's not a big deal. A Nothing Burger
3. Ok, it might be a big deal, but it isn't illegal..so who cares.
4. Ok, it's illegal, but Crooked Hillary and Obummer did "something worse", so it's ok.
5. Get over it Snowflake Libtard, Cupcake, you're just a sore loser!

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=59192159#p59192159

[cammac]

The next Trump fiasco is going to be the top 1% money grab in tax reform and the Koch brothers are gearing up a minimum of $10 million to do a full court press to get the best possible terms for the 1%. Look at the numbers no minimum tax for the rich so that 15% is gone, no inheritance tax ( note both brothers are in there 80.s worth a combined 82 billion ), maximum tax rate reduced by 4.6%. While also corporate tax rates will be lower which in theory I haven't a problem with as long as the many horrendous loopholes are closed. This is all perpetrated on the myth that it will have a trickle down effect which has been disproved numerous times with the last true test in Kansas with the current Brownback regime. How are the tax cuts going to be paid for?
Well they won't be and will likely increase the deficit significantly but it also gives Republicans a chance at whittling away on the social services safety net, environment, attack on healthcare, education and worker protection. What if anything will a middle class voter get for it a few hundred dollar or in reality slightly higher taxes.

Taxes for people should not be the enemy but what get for value of your taxes is the important thing.

[stilldropin20]

The next Trump fiasco is going to be the top 1% money grab in tax reform and the Koch brothers are gearing up a minimum of $10 million to do a full court press to get the best possible terms for the 1%. Look at the numbers no minimum tax for the rich so that 15% is gone, no inheritance tax ( note both brothers are in there 80.s worth a combined 82 billion ), maximum tax rate reduced by 4.6%. While also corporate tax rates will be lower which in theory I haven't a problem with as long as the many horrendous loopholes are closed. This is all perpetrated on the myth that it will have a trickle down effect which has been disproved numerous times with the last true test in Kansas with the current Brownback regime. How are the tax cuts going to be paid for?
Well they won't be and will likely increase the deficit significantly but it also gives Republicans a chance at whittling away on the social services safety net, environment, attack on healthcare, education and worker protection. What if anything will a middle class voter get for it a few hundred dollar or in reality slightly higher taxes.

Taxes for people should not be the enemy but what get for value of your taxes is the important thing.

not to side track too much but on April 4th, 1933 via executive order franklin Roosevelt made it illegal (yes ILLEGAL) for americans to hoard gold coin, buillion, etc. the price of Gold was $20.67. and americans were forced to sell their gold. or if you had the means you could simply ship it overseas or offshore. which the wealthy did.

then about a year later the price of Gold was set to $35. Nearly doubled!!!! after illegally consfiscating all that wealth the year before. Foreign investors could buy gold overseas and sell it at massive profits. This was how fort knox got filled up with gold.

basically the poor and middle class' wealth was confiscated at a non negotiable price of $20. and a year later the price was set at $35 per ounce. Richard Nixon reversed this executive order (later the Gold reserve act of 1934) in 1969 or 1970.

2 alarming things should have entered your mind. why could foreign (bankers) buy gold at 20 per ounce overseas and sell it to america at massive profits???? and why did the GDP grow from 1933-1937 at an alarming rate of 8 per year%!!!?? we were NOT even in the war yet!!!!!

Economists say that the alarming GDP growth rate was due primarily to the massive increase in the money supply. One could deduce, that European bankers filled our fort knox coiffures with their european gold which we protected. And sold to us at massive profits.

its funny, if they needed to protect their gold supplies from Hitler, and they did. Why did we also allow them to protect it and give them massive profits for doing so????? Shouldn't we have "charged them??? bought it at a discount??? at say 15 per ounce??? since the buy back price for americans was 20 per ounce???!!

Instead It was a blatant confiscation of the poor and middle class' wealth at 20 per ounce while buying back the wealthy elite ruling class' gold at alarming profits, $35, for the wealthy. Why!!!??

I'll tell you why, this was the cost of refilling our money supply. Not only did we protect the european gold from hitler but we also paid them massive profits. Again, this was nothing more than a confiscation of wealth from the poor and a payout to the rich, wealthy elite ruling class.

So why cant we confiscate their wealth? As cammac outlines?? People are not as stupid as they were in 1933. the masses are more educated. they can and will understand these simple enough concepts. if everyone gets on board with confiscating their wealth, it can and will happen.

1st of all...we cant announce it ahead of time. because they will move their wealth off shore.

Step 1: massive military. absolutely massive, every single american armed.
step 2: repatriate the wealth, via tax incentives as you see now.
step 3: executive order with massive taxes on any private, corporate, and foundation wealth once it leaves the US central banking system. 75% or higher.
step 4: massive inheritance tax. 85% or higher on anything over $10 million (arbitrary amount).

a: you need the military because the ruling class is not giving up their money. expect massive propoganda campaign against the US.
b: you must repatriate that wealth first. Most of it is overseas or off shore due to lower taxes.
c: then unannounced executive order with massive tax on any wealth that leaves the US banking system. Just like franklin roosevelt did in 1933 with gold. he confiscated the wealth then and we can do it again right now. except this time take the ruling class' wealth back and give it to the people who own this country.
d: then a massive death tax.

This would make the american dream still alive and well as one can become wealthy during ones life. But that wealth goes when the originators of that wealth die.

if you "announce this." if a president campaigns on this that wealth will simply go off shore and never return. and in fact they will constrict the money supply to the US to bring about widespread poverty, despair, and revolt. force our politicians into another Gold ACT or similar like in 1933-34.

[Hoopstarr]

Saw this hilarious list in the Current Affairs board, thought it might be a handy reference.

Saw this post on a facebook video:

The Five Stages of Trump Supporter Denial:

1. It's a total lie, never happened, fake news.
2. It happened, but it's not a big deal. A Nothing Burger
3. Ok, it might be a big deal, but it isn't illegal..so who cares.
4. Ok, it's illegal, but Crooked Hillary and Obummer did "something worse", so it's ok.
5. Get over it Snowflake Libtard, Cupcake, you're just a sore loser!

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=59192159#p59192159

I think this actually gives them too much credit. I've come across very few people who even go as far as "it might be a big deal" or "it's illegal". The most common one after #1 is whataboutism re: Hillary/Obama/Democrats/liberals and "what about black on black crime".

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

Saw this hilarious list in the Current Affairs board, thought it might be a handy reference.

Saw this post on a facebook video:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=59192159#p59192159

I think this actually gives them too much credit. I've come across very few people who even go as far as "it might be a big deal" or "it's illegal". The most common one after #1 is whataboutism re: Hillary/Obama/Democrats/liberals and "what about black on black crime".

Generally agree, but I like to keep it lighter here if I can. Regardless of political views, were all drawn together by Wizards fandom on this board. I try to walk the line between accepting Trump as the new normal and calling every Trump supporter a fool (which is certain to make a Trump supporter tune you out permanently).

I have family and friends who supported Trump. I've seen a couple of Trump supporters I know come around already, and expect there will be more. You gotta be there to throw out the lifeline!

[cammac]

Saw this hilarious list in the Current Affairs board, thought it might be a handy reference.


https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=59192159#p59192159

I think this actually gives them too much credit. I've come across very few people who even go as far as "it might be a big deal" or "it's illegal". The most common one after #1 is whataboutism re: Hillary/Obama/Democrats/liberals and "what about black on black crime".

Generally agree, but I like to keep it lighter here if I can. Regardless of political views, were all drawn together by Wizards fandom on this board. I try to walk the line between accepting Trump as the new normal and calling every Trump supporter a fool (which is certain to make a Trump supporter tune you out permanently).

I have family and friends who supported Trump. I've seen a couple of Trump supporters I know come around already, and expect there will be more. You gotta be there to throw out the lifeline!

I agree to the extent that the polls show that significant numbers of independents have changed there minds on Trump and even some Republican support from the low 80's to mid to high 70's. But I seriously doubt his support will go lower than 35% even in Canada I'm sure his support would be in the mid to high teens. A portion of any electorate is conditioned to be totally tribal in how they vote. I'm sure and the numbers reflect that that many have changed there views and I think one indicator is the popularity of Obamacare now in the general public and that will grow with Trumps hit on people with existing conditions and older people who will see payments rocket.

[popper]

I’m interested to know whether participants on this thread agree with the following distinction between liberal and progressive thought / means.

“Traditional liberals, who have long held sway in the Democratic Party, want to create “a kinder and gentler society, which is nonetheless fiercely devoted to providing civil liberties to all – including free speech as well as fair [due] process in criminal and disciplinary matters,” said Silverglate. The classic example is the ACLU’s effort in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill.

Progressives, he said, are committed to achieving their social and economic agenda “at whatever cost to civil liberties.”

They are more likely to support laws restricting “hate speech.” Many progressives – most notably those who have shut down speakers at Middlebury, Berkeley and other college campuses – argue that the First Amendment is a tool of oppression used by the privileged to brainwash the public. “The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized,” professors Kate Manne of Cornell and Jason Stanley of Yale wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/16/liberal_intolerance.html

[gtn130]

I’m interested to know whether participants on this thread agree with the following distinction between liberal and progressive thought / means.

“Traditional liberals, who have long held sway in the Democratic Party, want to create “a kinder and gentler society, which is nonetheless fiercely devoted to providing civil liberties to all – including free speech as well as fair [due] process in criminal and disciplinary matters,” said Silverglate. The classic example is the ACLU’s effort in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill.

Progressives, he said, are committed to achieving their social and economic agenda “at whatever cost to civil liberties.”

They are more likely to support laws restricting “hate speech.” Many progressives – most notably those who have shut down speakers at Middlebury, Berkeley and other college campuses – argue that the First Amendment is a tool of oppression used by the privileged to brainwash the public. “The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized,” professors Kate Manne of Cornell and Jason Stanley of Yale wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/16/liberal_intolerance.html

Dude, this caricature of 'progressives' you've construed in your mind isn't actually a thing. Like, I don't even think 'progressives' as a collective body have made any pronouncements at all regarding free speech. It's not really a serious topic.

That said, I'm fine with Nazis not being allowed to host rallies. Similarly, I also prefer that ISIS recruiters can't host rallies. But that's really it. Otherwise I don't care what people give speeches about. My line in the sand is when the event is organized by terrorists with the intent of galvanizing people to commit acts of violence.

If you can't differentiate between Nazis and normal people, that's on you.

[cammac]

I’m interested to know whether participants on this thread agree with the following distinction between liberal and progressive thought / means.

“Traditional liberals, who have long held sway in the Democratic Party, want to create “a kinder and gentler society, which is nonetheless fiercely devoted to providing civil liberties to all – including free speech as well as fair [due] process in criminal and disciplinary matters,” said Silverglate. The classic example is the ACLU’s effort in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill.

Progressives, he said, are committed to achieving their social and economic agenda “at whatever cost to civil liberties.”

They are more likely to support laws restricting “hate speech.” Many progressives – most notably those who have shut down speakers at Middlebury, Berkeley and other college campuses – argue that the First Amendment is a tool of oppression used by the privileged to brainwash the public. “The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized,” professors Kate Manne of Cornell and Jason Stanley of Yale wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/16/liberal_intolerance.html

Dude, this caricature of 'progressives' you've construed in your mind isn't actually a thing. Like, I don't even think 'progressives' as a collective body have made any pronouncements at all regarding free speech. It's not really a serious topic.

That said, I'm fine with Nazis not being allowed to host rallies. Similarly, I also prefer that ISIS recruiters can't host rallies. But that's really it. Otherwise I don't care what people give speeches about. My line in the sand is when the event is organized by terrorists with the intent of galvanizing people to commit acts of violence.

If you can't differentiate between Nazis and normal people, that's on you.

I guess Canadians are Progressives even Conservative because part of our Constitution has the limitation on free speech as it pertains to hate speech. It is very rarely used but it is there to stop people who tell extreme falsehoods the organizers of the Charlotteville would not be allowed in Canada.

[popper]

I’m interested to know whether participants on this thread agree with the following distinction between liberal and progressive thought / means.

“Traditional liberals, who have long held sway in the Democratic Party, want to create “a kinder and gentler society, which is nonetheless fiercely devoted to providing civil liberties to all – including free speech as well as fair [due] process in criminal and disciplinary matters,” said Silverglate. The classic example is the ACLU’s effort in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill.

Progressives, he said, are committed to achieving their social and economic agenda “at whatever cost to civil liberties.”

They are more likely to support laws restricting “hate speech.” Many progressives – most notably those who have shut down speakers at Middlebury, Berkeley and other college campuses – argue that the First Amendment is a tool of oppression used by the privileged to brainwash the public. “The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized,” professors Kate Manne of Cornell and Jason Stanley of Yale wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/16/liberal_intolerance.html

Dude, this caricature of 'progressives' you've construed in your mind isn't actually a thing. Like, I don't even think 'progressives' as a collective body have made any pronouncements at all regarding free speech. It's not really a serious topic.

That said, I'm fine with Nazis not being allowed to host rallies. Similarly, I also prefer that ISIS recruiters can't host rallies. But that's really it. Otherwise I don't care what people give speeches about. My line in the sand is when the event is organized by terrorists with the intent of galvanizing people to commit acts of violence.

If you can't differentiate between Nazis and normal people, that's on you.

Dude. I didn't caricature anything. I posted excerpts from an article and asked for your opinion. You are probably the most ignorant person I've interacted with in my entire 7 years on this thread. You are incapable of having an adult conversation and I feel very sorry for you and for anyone you have a personal relationship with.

[popper]

I’m interested to know whether participants on this thread agree with the following distinction between liberal and progressive thought / means.

“Traditional liberals, who have long held sway in the Democratic Party, want to create “a kinder and gentler society, which is nonetheless fiercely devoted to providing civil liberties to all – including free speech as well as fair [due] process in criminal and disciplinary matters,” said Silverglate. The classic example is the ACLU’s effort in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill.

Progressives, he said, are committed to achieving their social and economic agenda “at whatever cost to civil liberties.”

They are more likely to support laws restricting “hate speech.” Many progressives – most notably those who have shut down speakers at Middlebury, Berkeley and other college campuses – argue that the First Amendment is a tool of oppression used by the privileged to brainwash the public. “The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized,” professors Kate Manne of Cornell and Jason Stanley of Yale wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/16/liberal_intolerance.html

Dude, this caricature of 'progressives' you've construed in your mind isn't actually a thing. Like, I don't even think 'progressives' as a collective body have made any pronouncements at all regarding free speech. It's not really a serious topic.

That said, I'm fine with Nazis not being allowed to host rallies. Similarly, I also prefer that ISIS recruiters can't host rallies. But that's really it. Otherwise I don't care what people give speeches about. My line in the sand is when the event is organized by terrorists with the intent of galvanizing people to commit acts of violence.

If you can't differentiate between Nazis and normal people, that's on you.

I guess Canadians are Progressives even Conservative because part of our Constitution has the limitation on free speech as it pertains to hate speech. It is very rarely used but it is there to stop people who tell extreme falsehoods the organizers of the Charlotteville would not be allowed in Canada.

Who decides what hate speech is? I guess you trust your political leaders to do so. Forgive me cammac but that is a very politically naive way of assessing the issue. Of course politicians and those appointed by them want to restrict free speech if it doesn't benefit them.

[cammac]

Dude, this caricature of 'progressives' you've construed in your mind isn't actually a thing. Like, I don't even think 'progressives' as a collective body have made any pronouncements at all regarding free speech. It's not really a serious topic.

That said, I'm fine with Nazis not being allowed to host rallies. Similarly, I also prefer that ISIS recruiters can't host rallies. But that's really it. Otherwise I don't care what people give speeches about. My line in the sand is when the event is organized by terrorists with the intent of galvanizing people to commit acts of violence.

If you can't differentiate between Nazis and normal people, that's on you.

I guess Canadians are Progressives even Conservative because part of our Constitution has the limitation on free speech as it pertains to hate speech. It is very rarely used but it is there to stop people who tell extreme falsehoods the organizers of the Charlotteville would not be allowed in Canada.

Who decides what hate speech is? I guess you trust your political leaders to do so. Forgive me cammac but that is a very politically naive way of assessing the issue. Of course politicians and those appointed by them want to restrict free speech if it doesn't benefit them.

Hate speech is where there is undeniable facts of a untruth such as the holocaust which is used to defame a race or a religion with intent to do harm. Yes at least in Canada I do believe our politicians of any of the parties and our Supreme Court will and does the right thing. Our laws are quite clear on how much a candidate can spend in his/her riding last election it was 87 cents per constituent. With strict guidelines on the amount of donations.

[popper]

I guess Canadians are Progressives even Conservative because part of our Constitution has the limitation on free speech as it pertains to hate speech. It is very rarely used but it is there to stop people who tell extreme falsehoods the organizers of the Charlotteville would not be allowed in Canada.

Who decides what hate speech is? I guess you trust your political leaders to do so. Forgive me cammac but that is a very politically naive way of assessing the issue. Of course politicians and those appointed by them want to restrict free speech if it doesn't benefit them.

Hate speech is where there is undeniable facts of a untruth such as the holocaust which is used to defame a race or a religion with intent to do harm. Yes at least in Canada I do believe our politicians of any of the parties and our Supreme Court will and does the right thing. Our laws are quite clear on how much a candidate can spend in his/her riding last election it was 87 cents per constituent. With strict guidelines on the amount of donations.

Who defines undeniable, and facts, and truth? According to you, it's politicians and the laws they create. Our constitution is a bit different in that we are guaranteed the right to speak our minds and opinions freely even if it offends people. I assume you recognize the difference.

[montestewart]

I’m interested to know whether participants on this thread agree with the following distinction between liberal and progressive thought / means.

“Traditional liberals, who have long held sway in the Democratic Party, want to create “a kinder and gentler society, which is nonetheless fiercely devoted to providing civil liberties to all – including free speech as well as fair [due] process in criminal and disciplinary matters,” said Silverglate. The classic example is the ACLU’s effort in 1978 to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill.

Progressives, he said, are committed to achieving their social and economic agenda “at whatever cost to civil liberties.”

They are more likely to support laws restricting “hate speech.” Many progressives – most notably those who have shut down speakers at Middlebury, Berkeley and other college campuses – argue that the First Amendment is a tool of oppression used by the privileged to brainwash the public. “The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized,” professors Kate Manne of Cornell and Jason Stanley of Yale wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/16/liberal_intolerance.html

Dude, this caricature of 'progressives' you've construed in your mind isn't actually a thing. Like, I don't even think 'progressives' as a collective body have made any pronouncements at all regarding free speech. It's not really a serious topic.

That said, I'm fine with Nazis not being allowed to host rallies. Similarly, I also prefer that ISIS recruiters can't host rallies. But that's really it. Otherwise I don't care what people give speeches about. My line in the sand is when the event is organized by terrorists with the intent of galvanizing people to commit acts of violence.

If you can't differentiate between Nazis and normal people, that's on you.

Dude. I didn't caricature anything. I posted excerpts from an article and asked for your opinion. You are probably the most ignorant person I've interacted with in my entire 7 years on this thread. You are incapable of having an adult conversation and I feel very sorry for you and for anyone you have a personal relationship with.

Popper, gtn130 is like Tiger Ginger Ale, the Ginger Ale with a Bite! He can be harsh at times, but he sure ain't ignorant! I've tangled with him, but he's a smart guy. Get to know him.

gtn130, I wonder about some of Popper's sources, but he truly is a nice guy, and if you send him links with alternative perspectives, he usually follows up on them. There are many conservatives that I won't engage with because I feel like I'm just a prop in a confirmation bias machine. Popper is not one of them.

FWIW Popper, I know nothing of this distinction. Liberal and progressive have long been used interchangeably, with liberal having the more established pedigree and progressive coming on strong in recent years once Ann Coulter et al managed to turn liberal into a cliched slur. I like liberal, it implies free. I like conservative, it implies conservation. I like progressive, it implies progress. I like left, because I gotta be going.

[cammac]

Who decides what hate speech is? I guess you trust your political leaders to do so. Forgive me cammac but that is a very politically naive way of assessing the issue. Of course politicians and those appointed by them want to restrict free speech if it doesn't benefit them.

Hate speech is where there is undeniable facts of a untruth such as the holocaust which is used to defame a race or a religion with intent to do harm. Yes at least in Canada I do believe our politicians of any of the parties and our Supreme Court will and does the right thing. Our laws are quite clear on how much a candidate can spend in his/her riding last election it was 87 cents per constituent. With strict guidelines on the amount of donations.

Who defines undeniable, and facts, and truth? According to you, it's politicians and the laws they create. Our constitution is a bit different in that we are guaranteed the right to speak our minds and opinions freely even if it offends people. I assume you recognize the difference.

I obviously know the difference and that part of our Bill of Rights is used extremely rarely the last time was over 10 years ago. It is not used on crackpots but on serious attempts to cause harm against people because of religion or race. I haven't a problem with it nor do Canadians as a whole. I do have problems with neo-nazis carrying firearms 1/2 my extended family was killed fighting that plague. My ex had most of her extended family killed in concentration camps.

Canadians tend to be much more progressive than Americans and far less isolationist plus our politicians can't be bought by the Koch Brothers or Democratic equivalents. Our Charter was written to be flexible to keep with the passage of time and our Supreme Court is not beholding to any political dogma but to interpret the laws that are fair to a changing society. A good example is the court overturned the laws pertaining to prostitution but gave the government one year to rewrite the laws per the guidance the court gave.

I have worked on leadership campaigns and in federal elections and while I may have disagreed with opponents I believe that they had the best interests of society. With Trudeau I agree with many of his policies but also disagree in certain areas. But one thing I applaud him for is that his cabinet is made up of 50% men and women and they represent the multicultural nature of our country.

[popper]

Hate speech is where there is undeniable facts of a untruth such as the holocaust which is used to defame a race or a religion with intent to do harm. Yes at least in Canada I do believe our politicians of any of the parties and our Supreme Court will and does the right thing. Our laws are quite clear on how much a candidate can spend in his/her riding last election it was 87 cents per constituent. With strict guidelines on the amount of donations.

Who defines undeniable, and facts, and truth? According to you, it's politicians and the laws they create. Our constitution is a bit different in that we are guaranteed the right to speak our minds and opinions freely even if it offends people. I assume you recognize the difference.

I obviously know the difference and that part of our Bill of Rights is used extremely rarely the last time was over 10 years ago. It is not used on crackpots but on serious attempts to cause harm against people because of religion or race. I haven't a problem with it nor do Canadians as a whole. I do have problems with neo-nazis carrying firearms 1/2 my extended family was killed fighting that plague. My ex had most of her extended family killed in concentration camps.

Canadians tend to be much more progressive than Americans and far less isolationist plus our politicians can't be bought by the Koch Brothers or Democratic equivalents. Our Charter was written to be flexible to keep with the passage of time and our Supreme Court is not beholding to any political dogma but to interpret the laws that are fair to a changing society. A good example is the court overturned the laws pertaining to prostitution but gave the government one year to rewrite the laws per the guidance the court gave.

I have worked on leadership campaigns and in federal elections and while I may have disagreed with opponents I believe that they had the best interests of society. With Trudeau I agree with many of his policies but also disagree in certain areas. But one thing I applaud him for is that his cabinet is made up of 50% men and women and they represent the multicultural nature of our country.

I am very sorry for your and your extended family's losses as a result of the German national socialist party. My family has made similar sacrifices in a military capacity. As you must know, neo-nazis carrying firearms aren't murdering people in the US or Canada. It would be helpful to the thread if you would research and publish who is murdering Americans and Canadians.

[cammac]

Who defines undeniable, and facts, and truth? According to you, it's politicians and the laws they create. Our constitution is a bit different in that we are guaranteed the right to speak our minds and opinions freely even if it offends people. I assume you recognize the difference.

I obviously know the difference and that part of our Bill of Rights is used extremely rarely the last time was over 10 years ago. It is not used on crackpots but on serious attempts to cause harm against people because of religion or race. I haven't a problem with it nor do Canadians as a whole. I do have problems with neo-nazis carrying firearms 1/2 my extended family was killed fighting that plague. My ex had most of her extended family killed in concentration camps.

Canadians tend to be much more progressive than Americans and far less isolationist plus our politicians can't be bought by the Koch Brothers or Democratic equivalents. Our Charter was written to be flexible to keep with the passage of time and our Supreme Court is not beholding to any political dogma but to interpret the laws that are fair to a changing society. A good example is the court overturned the laws pertaining to prostitution but gave the government one year to rewrite the laws per the guidance the court gave.

I have worked on leadership campaigns and in federal elections and while I may have disagreed with opponents I believe that they had the best interests of society. With Trudeau I agree with many of his policies but also disagree in certain areas. But one thing I applaud him for is that his cabinet is made up of 50% men and women and they represent the multicultural nature of our country.

I am very sorry for your and your extended family's losses as a result of the German national socialist party. My family has made similar sacrifices in a military capacity. As you must know, neo-nazis carrying firearms aren't murdering people in the US or Canada. It would be helpful to the thread if you would research and publish who is murdering Americans and Canadians.

No they just kill them with cars!!!!!! The biggest tragedy in America after 9-11 was the OKC bombing done by far right wing ideologue's.