|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 16 2025 18:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 08:09 Zambrah wrote:On January 16 2025 06:47 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2025 05:41 Uldridge wrote:
Do you think they're racist and sexist because they want to be racist and sexist and simply go like: that's the party for me, the racist, sexist party where they let you be racist and sexist!
The problem I'm having is that I agree with you, but in order to dissect what makes them the way they do, you need to understand their anatomy. You have done no such thing. It's like you're looking at a sick person and proclaiming: this is a sick person. What you need to do is find out what makes them sick, so that you can heal them, not point out they have a runny nose and are coughing incessantly.
You can find common ground without the need for calling them sexist and racist - which so far has only hurt Democrats and will continue to do so - and then you can calmly pull these people back to center. Meanwhile, Republicans only seem to be going full steam ahead while the Democrats are in an existential crisis, crying out that this is, in fact, the darkest timeline. Or maybe I'm just misreading the situation completely. They grew up in conservative America and were never taught critical thinking in school. Nor did America ever actually resolve the civil war, still seeing the effects of that. Add to that America itself just being fucked from top to bottom so people are stuck in hopeless situations with little to no way of getting themselves out of the hole they are in so they will latch on to anyone promising them unicorns because the people who offered them realistic solutions haven't delivered either, for a wide variety of reasons from opposition rat fuckery, to internal division. That won't stop me from considering them idiots of the highest order for voting for a convicted felon found liable for sexual assault that already spend 4 years fucking them over and literally killing them. I think this is pretty much right, and entirely fair, the only thing I'd ask is do you see these people as irredeemable? In an ideal world with proper outreach and years of time, perhaps. In modern social media bubbles, fake news and outrage. I don't think so. Life long indoctrination is hard to break without the ability to take them out of the environment that indoctrinated them in the first place. A few might get personally impacted by the shitshow they voted for and regret their choice but I would suspect most of those would also just hitch their wagon to the next populist to come along. Their personal situation isn't going to improve, they will still be desperate for any form of change.
Yeah, I basically agree, thank you for indulging me with your extrapolation. 
|
Norway28560 Posts
Which, tbh, is surprising and maybe something Trump will deserve credit for? I'm reading that Israeli officials have said that the guy Trump sent to land (Steve Witkoff) the deal has been.. rather undiplomatic. But if his first move is strongarming Nethanyahu into accepting a ceasefire then color me happy to be wrong.
|
On January 17 2025 07:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Which, tbh, is surprising and maybe something Trump will deserve credit for? I'm reading that Israeli officials have said that the guy Trump sent to land (Steve Witkoff) the deal has been.. rather undiplomatic. But if his first move is strongarming Nethanyahu into accepting a ceasefire then color me happy to be wrong.
The disgust that would be righteously aimed at Democrats and their supporters for their support of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign only for Trump of all people to put a stop to it would be devastating for Democrats political prospects.
They basically need Trump to make it worse like they said to rationalize their support for Democrats while they aided and abetted what they themselves identified as genocide.
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On January 17 2025 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2025 07:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Which, tbh, is surprising and maybe something Trump will deserve credit for? I'm reading that Israeli officials have said that the guy Trump sent to land (Steve Witkoff) the deal has been.. rather undiplomatic. But if his first move is strongarming Nethanyahu into accepting a ceasefire then color me happy to be wrong. The disgust that would be righteously aimed at Democrats and their supporters for their support of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign only for Trump of all people to put a stop to it would be devastating for Democrats political prospects. They basically need Trump to make it worse like they said to rationalize their support for Democrats while they aided and abetted what they themselves identified as genocide.
Would it? It really depends what the ceasefire looks like. If Trump can strong arm relevant leadership into peace deals/ceasefires in Palestine and Ukraine respectively that aren’t shit tier for those peoples, fair play.
This does of course go both ways to a degree, outside of absolutism (which isn’t without its place either), if a Trump-brokered ceasefire is shit tier, maybe there were substantive differences between the candidates and parties on this specific issue. Which people could perhaps concede.
I dunno really, I think it’s perfectly plausible that Netanyahu was just playing for time until someone (even) more in his court was in play, but we’ll have to see how it develops.
|
Israels right-wing is always cynically cultivating a domestic threat, to release it before elections.
Terror attacks tip elections in favor of Netanyahu, he can't continiue the war and leave "No Hamas".
If he did, he'd need to attack Iran next.
Without a threat, the hardliners do have nothing to offer in democratic elections.
|
On January 17 2025 09:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2025 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2025 07:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Which, tbh, is surprising and maybe something Trump will deserve credit for? I'm reading that Israeli officials have said that the guy Trump sent to land (Steve Witkoff) the deal has been.. rather undiplomatic. But if his first move is strongarming Nethanyahu into accepting a ceasefire then color me happy to be wrong. The disgust that would be righteously aimed at Democrats and their supporters for their support of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign only for Trump of all people to put a stop to it would be devastating for Democrats political prospects. They basically need Trump to make it worse like they said to rationalize their support for Democrats while they aided and abetted what they themselves identified as genocide. Would it? + Show Spoiler +It really depends what the ceasefire looks like. If Trump can strong arm relevant leadership into peace deals/ceasefires in Palestine and Ukraine respectively that aren’t shit tier for those peoples, fair play.
This does of course go both ways to a degree, outside of absolutism (which isn’t without its place either), if a Trump-brokered ceasefire is shit tier, maybe there were substantive differences between the candidates and parties on this specific issue. Which people could perhaps concede. I dunno really, I think it’s perfectly plausible that Netanyahu was just playing for time until someone (even) more in his court was in play, but we’ll have to see how it develops.
Yes.
Nothing about that scenario rationalizes Democrats support of ethnic cleansing/genocide or significantly improves their political prospects.
Like the Tik Tok ban, Democrats are so out of touch and recalcitrant they let Trump beat them to being on the side of the public on both. US President-elect Donald Trump will find a way to save TikTok before a ban on the app is due to take effect this weekend, his incoming national security adviser has said.
What's especially dangerous is that it handed Trump a legal fight where he could disregard the law and congress to uproarious applause from some of what would be his strongest opposition (demographically speaking) to him and his criminality. the incoming national security adviser hinted on Fox News that Trump was planning an executive order in an effort to suspend the ban.
However, it is unclear whether any such measure could circumvent a law passed by Congress.
www.bbc.com
It's worth understanding the anatomy of how we went from a bipartisan ban on Tik Tok signed into law by Biden, to Trump promising to save Tik Tok, and Biden promising not to enforce the law he signed.
It would help understand why the US was ostensibly able to make such a dramatic shift in policy and how to repeat it with other policies.
|
Resident Biden announced the Equal Rights amendment is the law of the land.
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
This is a problem for several reasons:
1) The President doesn't pass or veto or sign or ratify amendments, meaning he has failed to understand the basic concept of separation of powers once again, just like when he appointed a special prosecutor with the power of a US attorney who had no Congressional confirmation, and when he tried to spend hundreds of billions on student loan relief without an act of the legislature to whom the job of budgeting is assigned, and when he paroled millions via executive order essentially changing immigration law.
2) Although states can ratify an amendment after the Congress that passed it has adjourned, an amendment that included a time limit for ratification, as the ERA did, has never gotten the requisite number of 38 states' ratifications after its proposed time limit, therefore never having before challenged the question of whether Congress can constitutionally propose an amendment but validly put a time limit on its ratification. The ERA's time limit expired a long time ago.
3) It has never been clearly addressed whether a state can rescind their ratification of an amendment, which enough have done in the case of the ERA that if possible it would still be under the threshhold of 38 states.
https://x.com/POTUS/status/1880271367569895830
|
On January 18 2025 03:47 oBlade wrote:Resident Biden announced the Equal Rights amendment is the law of the land. Show nested quote +"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." This is a problem for several reasons: 1) The President doesn't pass or veto or sign or ratify amendments, meaning he has failed to understand the basic concept of separation of powers once again, just like when he appointed a special prosecutor with the power of a US attorney who had no Congressional confirmation, and when he tried to spend hundreds of billions on student loan relief without an act of the legislature to whom the job of budgeting is assigned, and when he paroled millions via executive order essentially changing immigration law. 2) Although states can ratify an amendment after the Congress that passed it has adjourned, an amendment that included a time limit for ratification, as the ERA did, has never gotten the requisite number of 38 states' ratifications after its proposed time limit, therefore never having before challenged the question of whether Congress can constitutionally propose an amendment but validly put a time limit on its ratification. The ERA's time limit expired a long time ago. 3) It has never been clearly addressed whether a state can rescind their ratification of an amendment, which enough have done in the case of the ERA that if possible it would still be under the threshhold of 38 states. https://x.com/POTUS/status/1880271367569895830
Is the contention that equal rights should not be afforded to women? Or is this about the word sex? Genuinely confused on this one.
|
On January 18 2025 05:02 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2025 03:47 oBlade wrote:Resident Biden announced the Equal Rights amendment is the law of the land. "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." This is a problem for several reasons: 1) The President doesn't pass or veto or sign or ratify amendments, meaning he has failed to understand the basic concept of separation of powers once again, just like when he appointed a special prosecutor with the power of a US attorney who had no Congressional confirmation, and when he tried to spend hundreds of billions on student loan relief without an act of the legislature to whom the job of budgeting is assigned, and when he paroled millions via executive order essentially changing immigration law. 2) Although states can ratify an amendment after the Congress that passed it has adjourned, an amendment that included a time limit for ratification, as the ERA did, has never gotten the requisite number of 38 states' ratifications after its proposed time limit, therefore never having before challenged the question of whether Congress can constitutionally propose an amendment but validly put a time limit on its ratification. The ERA's time limit expired a long time ago. 3) It has never been clearly addressed whether a state can rescind their ratification of an amendment, which enough have done in the case of the ERA that if possible it would still be under the threshhold of 38 states. https://x.com/POTUS/status/1880271367569895830 Is the contention that equal rights should not be afforded to women? Or is this about the word sex? Genuinely confused on this one.
The contention is clearly that the amendment has not been ratified, and the POTUS does not have the power to do so. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-national-archivist-constitution
|
lol noobs, Trump isn’t even the president yet and somehow did what nobody else could. He’s such an evil man, brokering a peace agreement. Orange man had xD
|
Finland917 Posts
On January 18 2025 05:38 Timebon3s wrote:
lol noobs, Trump isn’t even the president yet and somehow did what nobody else could. He’s such an evil man, brokering a peace agreement. Orange man had xD
It's always happy hour somewhere. Orange man had indeed.
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On January 18 2025 05:38 Timebon3s wrote:
lol noobs, Trump isn’t even the president yet and somehow did what nobody else could. He’s such an evil man, brokering a peace agreement. Orange man had xD
Wow you sure owned the libsTM there.
|
On January 18 2025 05:38 Timebon3s wrote:
lol noobs, Trump isn’t even the president yet and somehow did what nobody else could. He’s such an evil man, brokering a peace agreement. Orange man had xD
Citation needed. Shitting all over the chess board isn't brokering anything.
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On January 18 2025 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2025 09:09 WombaT wrote:On January 17 2025 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2025 07:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Which, tbh, is surprising and maybe something Trump will deserve credit for? I'm reading that Israeli officials have said that the guy Trump sent to land (Steve Witkoff) the deal has been.. rather undiplomatic. But if his first move is strongarming Nethanyahu into accepting a ceasefire then color me happy to be wrong. The disgust that would be righteously aimed at Democrats and their supporters for their support of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign only for Trump of all people to put a stop to it would be devastating for Democrats political prospects. They basically need Trump to make it worse like they said to rationalize their support for Democrats while they aided and abetted what they themselves identified as genocide. Would it? + Show Spoiler +It really depends what the ceasefire looks like. If Trump can strong arm relevant leadership into peace deals/ceasefires in Palestine and Ukraine respectively that aren’t shit tier for those peoples, fair play.
This does of course go both ways to a degree, outside of absolutism (which isn’t without its place either), if a Trump-brokered ceasefire is shit tier, maybe there were substantive differences between the candidates and parties on this specific issue. Which people could perhaps concede. I dunno really, I think it’s perfectly plausible that Netanyahu was just playing for time until someone (even) more in his court was in play, but we’ll have to see how it develops. Yes. Nothing about that scenario rationalizes Democrats support of ethnic cleansing/genocide or significantly improves their political prospects. Like the Tik Tok ban, Democrats are so out of touch and recalcitrant they let Trump beat them to being on the side of the public on both. Show nested quote +US President-elect Donald Trump will find a way to save TikTok before a ban on the app is due to take effect this weekend, his incoming national security adviser has said. What's especially dangerous is that it handed Trump a legal fight where he could disregard the law and congress to uproarious applause from some of what would be his strongest opposition (demographically speaking) to him and his criminality. Show nested quote +the incoming national security adviser hinted on Fox News that Trump was planning an executive order in an effort to suspend the ban.
However, it is unclear whether any such measure could circumvent a law passed by Congress. www.bbc.comIt's worth understanding the anatomy of how we went from a bipartisan ban on Tik Tok signed into law by Biden, to Trump promising to save Tik Tok, and Biden promising not to enforce the law he signed. It would help understand why the US was ostensibly able to make such a dramatic shift in policy and how to repeat it with other policies.
Outside of public sentiment being frequently nonsensical, I can see it as a damaging issue to the Democrats, and I suppose by default something of a victory for the other lot, but not any kind of genuine enthusiasm for Trump on this issue.
‘Fuck the Dems they’re ostensibly my party but have transgressed over a personal red line on this particular issue’ like, 100% that makes sense. What doesn’t make much sense outside of those domains is to view Trump/the wider GOP more favourably on this issue given they often have even [i]worse[/i\] positions and rhetoric.
Must confess haven’t been following the TikTok craic very closely so can’t really comment in any informed way. Probably should have given social media and regulation in that domain is one of my more consistent bugbears.
Not that I’m ever particularly surprised by Trump making any individual move, I would have assumed for him to favour clamping down on TikTok given it fits his general anti-China shtick and one of his chief cheerleaders owns a competitor.
On the flip side I mean a lot of people like and use it, some make a living off it, most people won’t really give a shit about privacy and security concerns in general so seems a pretty pragmatic political move
|
On January 18 2025 05:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2025 05:02 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 18 2025 03:47 oBlade wrote:Resident Biden announced the Equal Rights amendment is the law of the land. "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." This is a problem for several reasons: 1) The President doesn't pass or veto or sign or ratify amendments, meaning he has failed to understand the basic concept of separation of powers once again, just like when he appointed a special prosecutor with the power of a US attorney who had no Congressional confirmation, and when he tried to spend hundreds of billions on student loan relief without an act of the legislature to whom the job of budgeting is assigned, and when he paroled millions via executive order essentially changing immigration law. 2) Although states can ratify an amendment after the Congress that passed it has adjourned, an amendment that included a time limit for ratification, as the ERA did, has never gotten the requisite number of 38 states' ratifications after its proposed time limit, therefore never having before challenged the question of whether Congress can constitutionally propose an amendment but validly put a time limit on its ratification. The ERA's time limit expired a long time ago. 3) It has never been clearly addressed whether a state can rescind their ratification of an amendment, which enough have done in the case of the ERA that if possible it would still be under the threshhold of 38 states. https://x.com/POTUS/status/1880271367569895830 Is the contention that equal rights should not be afforded to women? Or is this about the word sex? Genuinely confused on this one. The contention is clearly that the amendment has not been ratified, and the POTUS does not have the power to do so. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-national-archivist-constitution
So why haven't the states ratified it? This sounds like something everyone should be on board, no?
|
On January 18 2025 07:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2025 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2025 09:09 WombaT wrote:On January 17 2025 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2025 07:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Which, tbh, is surprising and maybe something Trump will deserve credit for? I'm reading that Israeli officials have said that the guy Trump sent to land (Steve Witkoff) the deal has been.. rather undiplomatic. But if his first move is strongarming Nethanyahu into accepting a ceasefire then color me happy to be wrong. The disgust that would be righteously aimed at Democrats and their supporters for their support of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign only for Trump of all people to put a stop to it would be devastating for Democrats political prospects. They basically need Trump to make it worse like they said to rationalize their support for Democrats while they aided and abetted what they themselves identified as genocide. Would it? + Show Spoiler +It really depends what the ceasefire looks like. If Trump can strong arm relevant leadership into peace deals/ceasefires in Palestine and Ukraine respectively that aren’t shit tier for those peoples, fair play.
This does of course go both ways to a degree, outside of absolutism (which isn’t without its place either), if a Trump-brokered ceasefire is shit tier, maybe there were substantive differences between the candidates and parties on this specific issue. Which people could perhaps concede. I dunno really, I think it’s perfectly plausible that Netanyahu was just playing for time until someone (even) more in his court was in play, but we’ll have to see how it develops. Yes. Nothing about that scenario rationalizes Democrats support of ethnic cleansing/genocide or significantly improves their political prospects. Like the Tik Tok ban, Democrats are so out of touch and recalcitrant they let Trump beat them to being on the side of the public on both. US President-elect Donald Trump will find a way to save TikTok before a ban on the app is due to take effect this weekend, his incoming national security adviser has said. What's especially dangerous is that it handed Trump a legal fight where he could disregard the law and congress to uproarious applause from some of what would be his strongest opposition (demographically speaking) to him and his criminality. the incoming national security adviser hinted on Fox News that Trump was planning an executive order in an effort to suspend the ban.
However, it is unclear whether any such measure could circumvent a law passed by Congress. www.bbc.comIt's worth understanding the anatomy of how we went from a bipartisan ban on Tik Tok signed into law by Biden, to Trump promising to save Tik Tok, and Biden promising not to enforce the law he signed. It would help understand why the US was ostensibly able to make such a dramatic shift in policy and how to repeat it with other policies. Outside of public sentiment being frequently nonsensical, I can see it as a damaging issue to the Democrats, and I suppose by default something of a victory for the other lot, but not any kind of genuine enthusiasm for Trump on this issue. ‘Fuck the Dems they’re ostensibly my party but have transgressed over a personal red line on this particular issue’ like, 100% that makes sense. What doesn’t make much sense outside of those domains is to view Trump/the wider GOP more favourably on this issue given they often have even worse positions and rhetoric. + Show Spoiler +Must confess haven’t been following the TikTok craic very closely so can’t really comment in any informed way. Probably should have given social media and regulation in that domain is one of my more consistent bugbears.
Not that I’m ever particularly surprised by Trump making any individual move, I would have assumed for him to favour clamping down on TikTok given it fits his general anti-China shtick and one of his chief cheerleaders owns a competitor. On the flip side I mean a lot of people like and use it, some make a living off it, most people won’t really give a shit about privacy and security concerns in general so seems a pretty pragmatic political move
It's not about enthusiasm for Trump but distrust and disaffection for genocidal Democrats. This is clearly a significant part of what lost them 2024 against a 2x impeached, conman, convicted sexual assaulter, insurrectionist, prospective dictator, beholden to Russia.
The TikTok bit is more about Trump sapping the energy out of his strongest opposition (demographically). TikTok doesn't just distract them from doing actual political activities, it also sets Trump up to have a political/legal battle where the demographics most needed to oppose him will have been largely neutralized with the bread and circus of TikTok and will take his side against Congress and the law. Which sets a dangerous precedent/battleground.
This is sort of like the Covid checks with his name on them but it's 100% a Democrat own goal.
|
Donald Trump can smell the blood in the water.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/our-energy-policies-have-made-us-more-vulnerable-trumps-tariffs
A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.
Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.
Trump: "we don't need their cars. we can make those cars in Detroit" LOL.
There is no Buzz Hargrove to save Canada this time.
|
United States41995 Posts
If you think Trump is going to do something that increases petrol prices you’re confusing him with someone who doesn’t think petrol prices are the economy.
|
Northern Ireland23866 Posts
On January 20 2025 11:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Donald Trump can smell the blood in the water. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/our-energy-policies-have-made-us-more-vulnerable-trumps-tariffsShow nested quote +A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.
Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes. Trump: "we don't need their cars. we can make those cars in Detroit" LOL. There is no Buzz Hargrove to save Canada this time.
There’s a real chasm between the standards you hold Canadian politicians to to that you hold Trump to.
Your overall political outlook is genuinely nonsensical to me if one considers predictability or consistency. Although I will say I do find myself hard agreeing or hard disagreeing on an almost 50:50 basis with little in the middle.
|
On January 20 2025 12:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2025 11:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Donald Trump can smell the blood in the water. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/our-energy-policies-have-made-us-more-vulnerable-trumps-tariffsA year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.
Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes. Trump: "we don't need their cars. we can make those cars in Detroit" LOL. There is no Buzz Hargrove to save Canada this time. There’s a real chasm between the standards you hold Canadian politicians to to that you hold Trump to. Your overall political outlook is genuinely nonsensical to me if one considers predictability or consistency. Although I will say I do find myself hard agreeing or hard disagreeing on an almost 50:50 basis with little in the middle.
not at all, IMO, the greatest Canadian PM in its history beat up his wife for decades. Pierre Trudeau was awesome. He also beat his wife. meh. His son turned out pretty good though. He'd make a fine back bench MP.
Canadians knew Trudeau beat Maggie. They still voted for him. again, and again, and again.
Pierre Trudeau shrugged off statements that the Canadian army threatened members of the CBC and Canadian press. He turned it into a joke. That day Trudeau-mania was born.
I measure a leader by how easy they make the path of a working poor or lower middle class person. The easier it is for those classes of people to become upper middle class the more favourably I see the leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
