Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am half Canadian and can become a citizen because my dad was a Canadian when I was born. I have chosen not to for a variety of reasons. Cost of housing, cold climate, healthcare and taxes. Canada is a wonderful country with incredible natural beauty. a government that really cares about its people and a more relaxed lifestyle. If it were warmer I would consider it but 6+ months of cold weather is too much for me at this stage of my life. Canada is where I met my wife, had the best wedding anyone could dream of and where I have spent many enjoyable days.
Cold weather.....
And you live in Buffalo
6 months of cold weather is too much for you....even Canada has places with
a warmer and better climates than Buffalo....Windsor, Osoyoos, Victoria,
heck, even Toronto has a better climate than Buffalo....half the snowfall....etc
I'm a Canadian; I always "feel free" regardless if given permission or not.
As to your comment about government choice versus citizen choice....you do realize that citizen desire is why strict firearms controls exist in Canada, or do you not?
The right to life and self defense should not be up for a majority vote..I consider it an inalienable right.
Canada has always had more strict gun control compared to the US, since the early days of Confederation authorities could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without cause..it had nothing to do with citizen desire...you do not have gun rights in your constitution, the US does.
Gun control was imposed, for example in the North-West territories in an attempt to prevent what did later become the Red River rebellion
Quote:
And lastly; what you said was "The US has a peculiar history and unfortunately the legacy of mass slavery that Canada luckily did not have." It might have been fortuitous but that was by design. You don't describe a result sought after as being in any way associated with luck. Instead, you could have said "Canada wisely avoided that legacy."
That is exactly what I meant....luckily Canada did not take that route or, better, wisely and quickly reversed course....Canada did indeed have slavery but no anywhere near the American experience.
Slavery was already a highly contentious issue at the time of the Constitutional Convention of the United States (the odious three-fifth compromise to get the southern states on board) and we had to go through a bloody civil war almost 80 years after.....
6 months of cold weather is too much for you....even Canada has places with
a warmer and better climates than Buffalo....Windsor, Osoyoos, Victoria,
heck, even Toronto has a better climate than Buffalo....half the snowfall....etc
....He said "at this stage in my life"...it may mean that eventually he will move to a warmer climate where he does not have to worry about health insurance (senior Canadian snowbirds need health coverage if spending the winter in the US) and where he can live there more than 6 months.
Glad we can at least talk about thing more rationally, instead of dismissing each other like a bunch of hotheaded teenagers (you voted for trump, you must be either racist or retard!)
in terms of foreign policy, Clinton is very very bad. For some reason this woman just loves wars. what is more disgraceful is that she later blames someone else for her decision.
I am certain most Trump voters don't vote for him out of hatred of minoritie, no matter how some people stretch it. they have their own legitimate concerns which I explained several times. It is very wrong and arrogant to dismiss these people all as racists or rednecks. The assumption that democrats are morally superior is just laughable.
you spoke of mob mentality. well, who are exatly rioting on the streets, burning cars and smashing windows because they don't like the outcome of a democratic election? I am not sure if the hatred of which camp against the other is stronger, but let's say neither is that great. DID Sanders supports riot on the street learning their candidate was basically ripped of the chance to run by the system? did trump supports protest on the street again all the trump demonization, completely unfair and unobjective treatment as well as outright lies spread by the US media?
OK, regarding hate, tell him who did Trump tell us to hate. Did he really encourage us to hate people because they are latinos, or gays? He apparently hates illegal immigrants - well, I do too as a racial minority. If tomorrow politicians in canada proposes to crack down illegal chinese immigrants, I will be totally supportive. My position is not determined by my race, or how it might affect the Chinese people in Canada, rather, as a voter and citizen, I only care about whether the policy is right or not. So what's wrong with deporting no matter how many illegal immigrants? I just don't know. If I sneak into the US and stays illegally, I will be deported, will you sympathize me? What's different for the millions of illegal latinos?
I would say the decision of previous governments not to deport them is wrong. You either change the law by making them legal, or abide by the law by deporting them. not doing anything, that's wrong. And how does that turn into a racism issue? If it were an illegal from sweden, he should be deported too. The fact that it will impact the hispanic population changes nothing.
Destroying anyone who opposes him... where the hell did you get that from? is there any facts behind it at all?? I don't know how many people just form the opinion that trump is a tyrant, dictator or even fascist. It becomes so ridiculous that it seems one can throw any bad words toward him, anything they want, without knowing what those words mean.
One thing that i agree with you is that trump's campaign did unleash the hated and bigotry among certain people, and that's the most serious consequence of this whole thing. But for one, trump himself didn't express such hatred, it is those people's interpretation. two, unfortunately that's what it takes to beat Clinton. If he didn't adopted such tactics, he wouldn't have won. Blame the election or the voters, not the candidate, who did everything by the law. And third, if Clinton is elected, what will happen? more wars in the middle east, no drones and lost lives (she doesn't care as long as it is not American lives) and more conflict with other countries such as China (the worst trump may do is a trade war, which is fine). More importantly, wall street and its greedy bosses will be richer and richer because she has no intention of reversing that (at least trump wants to change that).
I know many Clinton voters voted for him to avoid trump, which is fine. but don't pretend for a second that a clinton administration will be better for Americans and the world. It is the attitude that we democrats are so much better than you rednecks who dont know anything but hate and bigotry that disgusts me, and that's probably why trump won.
And it doesn't seem many are learning the lesson. They still think they are superior. They still think there is something wrong with the outcome of the election. trump's win is NOT due to hatred of its supporters. It is an ultimate reflection the failure of how for years the "progressive" liberals with their pretentious agenda fail to connect with real Americans other than the intellectuals and large city dwellers who benefited from the system.
The outcome of an election is NEVER wrong, because that is how it is designed and how it should be. What is wrong is always the losing sides policy and strategies.
I got the idea that Trump would destroy his critics by listening to his words. Did you somehow miss his comments that Republicans who refused to endorse him should be banned from further office? Did you miss his threats to sue the women who claim he put his hands on them, or the media outlets who dared to question his actions? These aren't just words, the man has a long history of suing those who displease him.
As for elections never being wrong, are you really willing to say that people, either as individuals, or collectively, as a nation, are incapable of making destructive choices? How I wish...sadly, even a passing glance at history tells me otherwise.
The right to life and self defense should not be up for a majority vote..I consider it an inalienable right.
Canada has always had more strict gun control compared to the US, since the early days of Confederation authorities could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without cause..it had nothing to do with citizen desire...you do not have gun rights in your constitution, the US does.
Gun control was imposed, for example in the North-West territories in an attempt to prevent what did later become the Red River rebellion
That is exactly what I meant....luckily Canada did not take that route or, better, wisely and quickly reversed course....Canada did indeed have slavery but no anywhere near the American experience.
Slavery was already a highly contentious issue at the time of the Constitutional Convention of the United States (the odious three-fifth compromise to get the southern states on board) and we had to go through a bloody civil war almost 80 years after.....
The right to life AND the self defense are not, and never have been, up for majority vote. We have both.
We do not have gun rights to the extent of carrying because we do not want them. We have gun rights. We have never needed a constitution and we now have a charter.
The proof might be found in the pudding by being judged as one of the top ten nations, if not the nation, with the most individual freedoms.
The reasons for gun control are varied and history has proven them to be on the whole, correct......... so far.
This post is back to reasoned discussion. Thank you.
For me in the hypothetical mall scenario, I would not care if I got shot really. We all have to die somehow, someday... I won't be paranoid about every little thing that could kill me in the world. Otherwise, I would never leave my home.
I got the idea that Trump would destroy his critics by listening to his words. Did you somehow miss his comments that Republicans who refused to endorse him should be banned from further office? Did you miss his threats to sue the women who claim he put his hands on them, or the media outlets who dared to question his actions? These aren't just words, the man has a long history of suing those who displease him.
As for elections never being wrong, are you really willing to say that people, either as individuals, or collectively, as a nation, are incapable of making destructive choices? How I wish...sadly, even a passing glance at history tells me otherwise.
Funny, American is a country built on law. By suing Trump is only exercising his right as an American citizen, and exactly what is wrong with that? So by threatening to sue others, one is defined as a tyrant? Never heard of that logic. You can sue me right now if you want and there is nothing wrong with that.
Shouldn't those women be sued? They brought forward the charges just to hurt his election, without a shred of evidence. Tell me, how do you know if it is Trump being a sexist, or those women falsifying? You have got to form your opinion based on evidence, not your existing prejudice -- I don't like trump, 13 women charge against him, therefore he must be guilty. We live in a civilized world where one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Didn't it turn out that some of the women proved to be lying? Essentially they were using their female status to damage a politician they don't like. I don't sympathize them just because they are women.
You are right a nation is capable of making destructive choices (Hitler maybe?) - but that happens later. Usually it is the opposing party that makes the mistake first of ignoring reality. And so far, I fail to see how destructive Trump is, and I don't think he will. Is quitting NATO, globalization, NAFTA destructive? Is refusing to accept illegal immigrants destructive? You tell me.
Funny, American is a country built on law. By suing Trump is only exercising his right as an American citizen, and exactly what is wrong with that? So by threatening to sue others, one is defined as a tyrant? Never heard of that logic. You can sue me right now if you want and there is nothing wrong with that.
Shouldn't those women be sued? They brought forward the charges just to hurt his election, without a shred of evidence. Tell me, how do you know if it is Trump being a sexist, or those women falsifying? You have got to form your opinion based on evidence, not your existing prejudice -- I don't like trump, 13 women charge against him, therefore he must be guilty. We live in a civilized world where one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Didn't it turn out that some of the women proved to be lying? Essentially they were using their female status to damage a politician they don't like. I don't sympathize them just because they are women.
You are right a nation is capable of making destructive choices (Hitler maybe?) - but that happens later. Usually it is the opposing party that makes the mistake first of ignoring reality. And so far, I fail to see how destructive Trump is, and I don't think he will. Is quitting NATO, globalization, NAFTA destructive? Is refusing to accept illegal immigrants destructive? You tell me.
First of all, tyrant was your choice of words, not mine.
Second, I realize that it is legal to sue people. This man has sued *thousands.* Threatening to sue anyone whose words displease you? That's just intimidation. As for believing the women, have you forgotten that Trump was caught on tape bragging about what he could get away with with women due to his "star" status? We don't know if he is lying or if they are, but by making comments like that, he certainly invites doubt, don't you think? It's pretty easy for me to imagine a woman he had touched choosing to just try to forget, given his money and power, then deciding, when that tape was released, that she simply could not remain silent any longer. Worse than threatening the women, he has threatened to change the laws to make it easier to sue media outlets. I don't know about you, but I rather like having a free press, even when I disagree with what it says.
Third, as I believe I have said before, I am not opposed to every policy he proposed (as much as I hate to admit it.) I agree we need to take steps to keep manufacturing jobs in the country (not that he actually makes his clothing line here, or anything else), but yes, I do think quitting NATO would be destructive. Have you read any of the reactions to that little suggestion by our allies? They are worried, and I don't blame them a bit.
Fourth, my biggest concern about Trump is his quick temper. What sort of man, while pursuing the most powerful position in the world, spends his early morning hours engaged in petty Twitter wars with private citizens? How will he handle it when the *real* criticism begins, at home and abroad. He will have much more powerful weapons than social media at his disposal then.
Fifth and finally, as a member of the opposing party, I am not trying to ignore reality (my snarky comments about him not being "my" president aside.) I am trying to point it out.
Funny, American is a country built on law. By suing Trump is only exercising his right as an American citizen, and exactly what is wrong with that? So by threatening to sue others, one is defined as a tyrant? Never heard of that logic. You can sue me right now if you want and there is nothing wrong with that.
Shouldn't those women be sued? They brought forward the charges just to hurt his election, without a shred of evidence. Tell me, how do you know if it is Trump being a sexist, or those women falsifying? You have got to form your opinion based on evidence, not your existing prejudice -- I don't like trump, 13 women charge against him, therefore he must be guilty. We live in a civilized world where one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Didn't it turn out that some of the women proved to be lying? Essentially they were using their female status to damage a politician they don't like. I don't sympathize them just because they are women.
You are right a nation is capable of making destructive choices (Hitler maybe?) - but that happens later. Usually it is the opposing party that makes the mistake first of ignoring reality. And so far, I fail to see how destructive Trump is, and I don't think he will. Is quitting NATO, globalization, NAFTA destructive? Is refusing to accept illegal immigrants destructive? You tell me.
Botti; you forget the man is a self-admitted sexual predator. 13 women coming forward publicly against a man well known to have no restraint against using his wealth and position to utterly destroy people he takes a dislike to, took an enormous amount of courage. These women know full well the ramifications, in terms of their lives being severely impacted in a bad way, of accusing Trump and did so anyway.
Having your crotch groped by someone rich and powerful while you are neither, and stepping forward at the time to do something abut it cannot be the easiest decision to make given the history of that going badly for so many women in the past century. Our society is loath to do the right thing when it comes to this stuff.
That's an alternate viewpoint to yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
