Dishonest and bias press. Many of them are in it to win it for Hillary. McCain caught some flack from media for calling Obama "that one" in a debate. Hillary calls him "that man" in leaked email. Crickets from many in the press.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Wrong the conservative party was never the reform party the Reform Party has always been just The reform party was led by men called Preston manning.The conservative party has always been the conservative party since Confederation
The chances of Alberta leaving there about the same as the Texas leaving the union
The chances of Alberta leaving there about the same as the Texas leaving the union
Last edited:
I dunnnoooo. Ontario and and Quebec seems to look for ways to screw Alberta, going back to the tariff walls where they instituted high tariffs on tractor production in Alberta to promote tractor production in Ontario.
Canada’s overall demographic situation is similar to the rest of the developed world, i.e., a large population moving toward retirement and hardly any young people in the replacement generation coming up. However, Alberta does not fit that mold. It is the youngest province by far, and is becoming younger, better paid and more highly skilled... as the rest of Canada becomes older and less skilled, and a financial ward of the state.
Then, of course, there's energy. What used to be primarily a provincial economy based on ranching has become one of oil and gas production. Alberta is second in the world only to Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. The US will be energy independent within a year or two thanks to shale oil. And between Alberta and the US, it's that shale oil that is severing the strongest link between us in North America and the rest of the world. The Middle East is becoming someone else’s problem.
You've got the eastern provinces just sucking the life out of Alberta and its oil, despite provincial constitutional controls over that oil. British Columbia has been hostile to Alberta’s efforts to diversity oil exports and the Atlantic is more than 2,000 miles away. That leaves the pipeline to the south. Combine that with the demographics of wealth transfer of an Alberta that is anything but liberal. Right now, every man, woman and child in Alberta pay $6,000 more into the national budget than they get back. Ontario thinks that's just awesome. Alberta is the only province that is a net contributor to that budget, and by 2020 the number is expected to exceed $20,000 per person, $40,000 per taxpayer. That will be the greatest wealth transfer in per capita terms in the Western world. The only other place we see things like that is in Saudi Arabia, where the oil-producing regions subsidize the rest of the country. Of course, in Saudi Arabia the "rest of the country" is very sparsely populated and the oil producing regions are controlled by the population centers. It's the exact opposite in Alberta where Alberta is sparsely populated and is subsidizing the eastern populations. That's not exactly in the playbook of a province that is more than 70% conservative.
The secessionist talk dies down when the Stephen Harper conservatives were elected, but Stephen Harper’s watch, a government that talks the talk about being pro-Alberta, Alberta’s tax bill has tripled. So just like in the US, it doesn't really matter who's in Ottawa, they're gonna soak up as much as they can. It doesn’t matter if it’s this government, the next government, or the one after that, the demographic trends are locked in. If you get a government in Ottawa that isn’t Conservative, isn’t born, bred, raised and trained in Alberta, what do you think they’re going to be doing to the tax policies? Same ol' same ol'.
Alberta as an independent country doesn’t solve a huge number of problems, and actually creates more than it would solve. If it left Canada and formed its own country, or even one in cahoots with BC and Sask (neither of which really want anything to do with seceding), its currency goes through the roof because all it has is oil exports, and that would drive agriculture out of business. It would be a one-horse economy in a very short time. Just like Saudi Arabia.
However, seceding to the U.S. becomes a very viable, maybe even the only political and economic option. If they do that, the inflation issue goes away, the tax problem goes away, the security problem goes away. Alberta gets everything it says it wants out of Canada within the first year of joining the U.S. And Congress would ratify such an expansion in a New York minute, what with the US then instantly becoming not only energy independent, but the dominant world power in oil and gas.
Both my sons live in Alberta and there is no way they would want to become part of America America has its own set of problems probably equal to the same as they have now The have-nots states just suck the money right out of that have states and so on before the oil sands projects west with expansion was sucking the money out of the east
Depends on how and on what you're flip-flopping about. If you constantly flop because it's politically expedient to do so, that's a pretty serious problem. Opinions and policy positions evolve and change as people age and learn, but voters can be unforgiving of politicians who radically change their stances based on which way and how strongly the windsock is blowing. Clinton was for decades on record as being dead-set against same-sex marriage ("I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.") but when it became politically advantageous to support it, she flopped.
She does it so often and on so many issues it's hard to list them here, but the most egregious, I think, is her position on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). As secretary of state under Obama, she backed the 12-nation trade agreement, having played a large role in laying the foundation and crafting the broad-stroked details, and calling it the "gold standard" of trade deals. She also repeatedly used words like "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality," "high-standard" to describe the deal.
Then when she was no longer Sec of State she began to slowly distance herself from the agreement saying that she wanted to reserve judgement until it's finalized when she can "see exactly what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards." From April, 2015 when she announced her candidacy through October, 2015 she still expressed those same reservations about the agreement, while at the same time touted her involvement as evidence of her expertise and experience in international trade and foreign affairs. But because of strong pressure from Bernie Sanders and his supporters, and the shifting windsock of the American people as they began to learn some of the details, she flat flopped. Even the very liberal editors of the Tampa Bay Times, the organization that runs PolitiFact.org, called it a "Full Flop."
But she's leaving the door open to flip-flop right back through after she is elected with "I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of state. I appreciate the hard work that President Obama and his team put into this process and recognize the strides they made. But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it."
Meaning, and explicitly enumerated by long-time close friend and VA governor, that once she becomes president there are a few details in the agreement she wants changed ("fixed") and the agreement will move forward.
She was against blanket rules on gun ownership, now those same blanket rules she was against are known as "common sense" gun control. She was dead set against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, now she's 100% for it. She was against employing illegals, but now, as long as they're employed and not breaking an (other) laws, it's fine. She was against Sanctuary Cities, saying those cities should be ale to ignore federal agencies and immigration laws, now she's against Sanctuary Cities saying they should listen to federal requests to turn over illegals. It depends on which way the wind is blowing and who she is talking to at the moment.
So while she might not technically be lying, at least in an empirical manner, her words cannot be trusted in the same manner as a lie.
On a side note.... this is what the election is really all about.
If Hillary wins it will be the first time in history two presidents have slept together in the White House.
If Trump wins it will be the first time in history that a billionaire has moved into public housing that was vacated by a black family.
If Hillary wins it will be the first time in history two presidents have slept together in the White House.
If Trump wins it will be the first time in history that a billionaire has moved into public housing that was vacated by a black family.
Not quite. Trump makes stuff up for a calculated defined reason.Fixed it for you.
They do that all the time. The headline grabs you, the first four paragraphs they tell you what they want you to know, and then somewhere further down into the story they slowly, sometimes almost off-handedly, reveal the actual, salient details of the story (or, in some cases, the reveal never happens). Reporters and editors know full well that most people read the headline and the first four paragraphs.
The stories on the polling is hilarious, where in the first 3 or 4 paragraphs, usually the first one, they exclaim how Clinton is leading Trump by a gazillion points, and then further down in the article the clarify that those number are of registered voters, not likely voters, and then still further down they note those are head-to-head numbers and in a 4-way race Clinton and Trump are either tied or Trump is actually leading.
I recall reading the story on CBS News and laughing out loud when I got to the ninth paragraph and they mentioned that Hillary used the same language, and in the same breath do a 'yeah, but-but-but' Clinton said that only after Mayor De Blasio had characterized the explosion as an intentional act. The story was crafted not to tell what happened, or even what each candidate's response was, but as a straight-up hit piece on Trump to reinforce the notion that Trump has a history of knee-jerk speculation, as they then they immediately move on to how Trump has a history of jumping to speculative conclusions before facts are known. They go on to detail 3 or 4 incidents where Trump jumped the gun. They fail utterly to mention that he was spot-on in every instance.
Every news article I read I do the Journalism 101 analytics on it. I look at the first 4 paragraphs, and then look at the rest of the article. How the article is laid out, and what information is where, tells me whether it's biased and by how much, and whether I need to find several other sources to sift down to the facts.
"I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this,” Clinton told reporters on her charter plane when asked about Trump’s jump to conclusions. “I think it’s also wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.”
She probably should have to that to the NY Governor and the NYC Mayor who both declared, within hours of the explosions, with no information whatsoever, that there was no link to terrorism in the explosions. Later both qualified their statements by saying there was no "international link" to terrorism, again based on the same no information whatsoever.
Many people hate the press because the press not biased in the direction they want the press to be, but this is a glaring example of why people hate the press these days. Biased is one thing, but dishonest is quite another.
I also heard yesterday Erin Burnett say it in her promo of her upcoming show.