U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-16-2016, 09:54 AM
 
2,566 posts, read 2,192,681 times
Reputation: 1816

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
that's condescending. I think it is you who should be more open minded.

Trust me, I am very liberal. Pro gay rights, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-euthanasia, pro choice, anti-gun, anti-wall street/laisser faire, don't care about religion, agree with Canada's decision to welcome syria refugees, and from the start I supported Sanders.

but I can't stand Hilary Clinton. This is funny because I usually adore strong women (such as Angela Merkel). Whoever think she is liberal must be completely insane. She fits the democratic party just like how Trump fits the republican (an anti-free market, anti-globalization republic?)

Just because Clinton gave those touching speeches about women's right or ethnic equality doesn't mean she is a liberal. Honestly those are very easy to do just to gain popularity - a Miss Universe can do that. It boils down to one's real position when it comes to important issues, and I am afraid her cozy relationship with wall street and her love for external wars causing so many lost lives can't make me fond of her even a little bit. And the fact she still sticks with Bill Clinton pretending to be a loving couple endorsing each other makes me more sick of her personality. Such a fake woman. Even her smile is fake every time.

Yet still many can't see it through and was like "Hilary! Hilary" as if it were a sign of progressiveness. They think by voting for the first female president and rejecting a billionaire the media disdains somehow makes them morally superior. If someone voted for her purely out of abhorrence of Trump, I can somehow understand, but voting for her as an ideal candidate, that's just pathetic. I know many who didn't vote for Trump, but they couldn't bring themselves to voting for Clinton either, and I respect that.

And there are those who vote for her primarily because she is a woman, that's just as bad as if someone decides not to vote for her because she is a woman. It is time for the US to have a female president, what BS argument is that?
Clinton's work on women rights, equal pay, equal treatment in workplace, women's reproductive rights is hardly just rhetoric. It's backed up by years of work which are universally recognized by women's rights organizations worldwide. Yes, rhetoric is cheap, but I'm afraid on this particular topic, Clinton clearly has a lot to show for:

- For decades, Clinton has prioritized bills and policies promoting reproductive rights, equal pay, and family leave—far more so than Sanders and Obama, and light years ahead of the other GOP candidates. This is not to say that Sanders/Obama has not supported such legislation or practices. The key difference is that, for them, these topics simply haven’t been as much of a priority, such as Sanders' much stronger anti-trade, anti-poverty rhetoric vs. his much thinner platform for women's rights.

- The Clinton campaign made women's reproductive rights the centerpiece of her policy plans from the start of her campaign 1.5 years ago, while all other campaigns, including Sanders', barely mentioned anything about abortion, contraception, or reproductive care anywhere in his entire healthcare plans.

- As NY Senator, Clinton personally authored the development of the Paycheck Fairness Act (repeatedly introducing three versions of it during her time in Congress), and she was also part of the original set of co-authors of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, both of which are aimed at achieving equal pay for women in the workplace. Yes, other democrats like Obama and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid backed these bills, but it was Clinton who personally led the drafting of these legislations from the start to finish, and sponsored and financed them from start to finish.

- On advancing parental rights, she was the primary advocate and congressional sponsor for the Family and Medical Leave Act. The act was among the earliest federal laws in the United States to require companies to offer 12 weeks of paid or unpaid leave to parents and caregivers. This was a big deal that people now take for granted, because of the the Family and Medical Leave Act the United States was the only industrialized country that did not guarantee any parental leave for parents and caregivers.

- Today, paid family leave today only exists because of the stepping stones that Clinton helped establish more than two decades ago in 1993 as a result of her Family and Medical Leave Act, which took enormous amount of time and energy to pass given that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

- Even the Wikileak release of Clinton’s email actually revealed countless personal emails when members of her State Department and campaign staff were granted extra vacation days by Clinton around the holidays and family/personal emergencies to spend more time with their families. If one actually takes the time to read her emails, Clinton personally instituted an extremely lenient employee-leave policy, esp. for young mothers and fathers working in the State Department. If Wikileaks actually took the time to release the personal emails of Trump and the GOP congressional leaders, I can't at all imagine if they'd go this far to personally institute lenient employee leave programs.

With that said, Clinton obviously has fatal flaws in her flip-flop advocacy for LGBT rights and increasing minimum wage over the years (she advocated a gradual increase to $12 while Sanders called for immediate increase to $15). However, I think we can all agree that in her capacity as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Clinton's position on women's rights and parental rights have been consistently and unwavering, as evidenced by the numerous landmark laws that she personally authored and sponsored over the years, not to mention hundreds of her own personal emails that revealed a liberal and generous policy towards her own employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2016, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
5,976 posts, read 7,347,114 times
Reputation: 3741
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
This is all VERY bad for business and I a Millenial just trying to get established in this world. Not looking forward to trade wars with the US, not when we trusted the US, signed NAFTA, and now can't just restructure easily and go back to how things were. This will ruin us.

Never trust the USA. Never.
Funny, some in Canada made a big deal in the 80's about not wanting to sign a free trade deal with the US but now that it's been there for nearly 30 years and an American wants to possibly renegotiate it, we're the bad ones?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2016, 10:35 AM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,969 posts, read 18,968,149 times
Reputation: 33943
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowlines View Post
The thing I find most ironic about all the progressives wanting to move to Canada is that they want to move to...Canada. Why not Mexico or Panama? Chile or Colombia? The real answer is that they want to live in a predominately white country.

The further irony is that they want to move to a country that takes border security seriously and is very protectionist with limited immigration but rail against the Donald when he talks about these things.
Wow, when you've got nothing left, play the race card, lol.

FYI, many of us who want to move out of the US, are against illegal immigration. We want secure borders--Canada has them--and that's not racist either. We would immigrate legally, just as everyone should.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2016, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Canada
3,941 posts, read 2,745,269 times
Reputation: 5113
A couple of articles about Canada in The Economist:

Liberty moves north | The Economist

The last liberals | The Economist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2016, 08:23 PM
 
68 posts, read 28,906 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
Wow, when you've got nothing left, play the race card, lol.

FYI, many of us who want to move out of the US, are against illegal immigration. We want secure borders--Canada has them--and that's not racist either. We would immigrate legally, just as everyone should.
That is fine. You clearly aren't a progressive though. Which was the whole ironic part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 09:18 AM
 
2,566 posts, read 2,192,681 times
Reputation: 1816
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
A couple of articles about Canada in The Economist:

Liberty moves north | The Economist

The last liberals | The Economist
Nice, thanks for the post and a good read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 10:47 AM
 
2,293 posts, read 1,305,314 times
Reputation: 1525
Default 30 years ago

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradjl2009 View Post
Funny, some in Canada made a big deal in the 80's about not wanting to sign a free trade deal with the US but now that it's been there for nearly 30 years and an American wants to possibly renegotiate it, we're the bad ones?
If I recall correctly, NAFTA was not entirely welcome in the USA. Suspect, actually.

Trade deals/globalization seems to be a top down process imposed by elites.

Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any wild enthusiasm for TTP or TTIP here in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 12:55 PM
 
2,566 posts, read 2,192,681 times
Reputation: 1816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker View Post
If I recall correctly, NAFTA was not entirely welcome in the USA. Suspect, actually.

Trade deals/globalization seems to be a top down process imposed by elites.

Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any wild enthusiasm for TTP or TTIP here in the USA.
Hardly. The biggest advocates for trade and tax treaty agreements are businesses, small, medium, and large multinationals all have an interest in keeping import/export taxes low and reducing any kind of barrier that may obstruct the free movement of goods and services. We live in an extremely digitized age where buy and sell orders can come from anywhere in the world - I know a tailor/men's suit shop in Somerville, MA which used to sell only to local customers but in the last 5 years almost 50% of their orders come from international customers in Canada and the EU. 5-10 years ago that local tailor had very little interest or appetite for free trade and tax treaties, but he now has a personal stake in making sure that his goods can be shipped to the end buyer in Canada and the EU with as little tariff and trade barrier as possible. I would hardly label these millions of small business owners as "elitist" when they are just trying to serve their customers as efficiently as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 03:25 PM
 
1,679 posts, read 2,581,869 times
Reputation: 1292
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
No i dont. what has she been charged with to merit the crooked and corrupt descriptors?
Benghazi has been vetted ad nauseum and shes been found to be guilty of no wrong doing.
The email issue was a tempest in a teapot that brought forth no reason for legal action.
her Clinton foundation has been so far just the target of baseless allegation.
The whole smear campaign was just a political strategy from the Trump camp which obviously many people fell for.
Do you think maybe people voted for Trump because

- They are sick of paying taxes that go to people of lower income?
- They don't want a single payer system that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want free college that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want profit sharing in corporations that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want to expand social security that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want to expand Medicaid or welfare for the same reasons
- We have 20 Trillion in debt and poor people are demanding more government programs

They realize that 85% of legal immigrants from Mexico are on welfare, and that people from Mexico vote for the Democrats about 70% of the time. Yet only 4% of immigrants from England are on welfare

Do you realize that importing Mexicans will create another welfare dependent group that votes for more welfare?

What this country has become is a police state. The government puts a gun to your head and demands you give up your money to give to someone else, why? Because those people voted to take your money.

People were sick of where the Democrats were taking the country, they are sick of theft.

I'm not a slave but that is how Hillary Clinton and lots of voters view me as!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2016, 06:03 AM
 
34,505 posts, read 41,641,104 times
Reputation: 29975
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter View Post
Do you think maybe people voted for Trump because

- They are sick of paying taxes that go to people of lower income?
- They don't want a single payer system that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want free college that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want profit sharing in corporations that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want to expand social security that will take more of their money and give to the poor
- They don't want to expand Medicaid or welfare for the same reasons
- We have 20 Trillion in debt and poor people are demanding more government programs

They realize that 85% of legal immigrants from Mexico are on welfare, and that people from Mexico vote for the Democrats about 70% of the time. Yet only 4% of immigrants from England are on welfare

Do you realize that importing Mexicans will create another welfare dependent group that votes for more welfare?

What this country has become is a police state. The government puts a gun to your head and demands you give up your money to give to someone else, why? Because those people voted to take your money.

People were sick of where the Democrats were taking the country, they are sick of theft.

I'm not a slave but that is how Hillary Clinton and lots of voters view me as!
Hartford you imply its all about how much taxes you pay,be aware Americans are paying some of the lowest taxes in the world and they derive many social benefits from their government because of those taxes. Sure you can live in a place that has no government and its people pay no taxes but what would such a society look like?Somalia perhaps.
Heres a list of your federal government programs,if you were in charge which ones would you eliminate?=https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a
Be aware of the number of people who would lose their jobs or benefits by the terminating of the departments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top