Trump humor

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

if we discount a few things like the Canadian advent of socialized medicine, which America now has a version of, then Canadians and their institutions are more conservative than US.

That's not funny. The main thing Americans don't get about Canada is French. How did French survive in bulk up there on the Saint Lawrence river? Why ain't it quaint like New Orleans but everything is now English? Once you figure out that oddity at the centre of our federation, the rest of the differences click.

Why does Canada have provincially-administered single-payer healthcare? Because one maverick prairie province imposed socialist medicine on its doctors and hospitals. This became the bad model for all the other provinces as they 'modernized' (socialized) in the sixties and seventies.

Here's how the provincial systems work in almost all circumstances. You need some doctoring, you take your compulsory credit-card-like insurance card with you. It gets swiped, tapped, or inserted, and there is only one 'company' that pays the bill. You don't negotiate that bill with a phone-bank, nor do you see it, nor does some hideous HMO dicker with you. 

Obamacare seems a monstrously large,  inefficient and bizarre contraption next to our systems, province by province. There is a whole level of insane fund management in your health insurance and hospital markets that we don't have to cost for.  It has been forced out over the years to the margins, to what we call 'extended health' insurance, which covers the full sprawl from dentistry to mental health, disability, etc. 

The backbone now of this socialized system is national law that essentially says, "if you take federal money for your provincial health system, then you must guarantee universality of access and portability (to other provinces)."  Very big brother, very tight with the money clip.  "Universality" has huge entailments.

So, how does that relate to Canadian differences or conservative institutions? By hinge on risk, shared risk, insurance pools, managed risk. So then who manages the greatest risks here but the most conservative institutions in Canada, our Big Banks.

First note that our banking system is significantly and sometimes wildly different than yours. So-called chartered banks are coast-to-coast giants also usually active internationally. We don't have your inter-state restrictions on banking, so they dominate every market. We have a parallel credit-union to your savings-and-loan scale. So this leaves only very large institutions to provide the elasticity in the economy, a Big Six.

This wall of banking didn't experience the trillion dollar sucking sound of value vacuum as did your wall of banks. The ultimate capitalization of  our economy meant we could weather the following recession with spending we could 'afford.'  As ever, when the US goes into recession, it means recession for the intertwined Canadian economy. Sometimes the conservative nature of our institutions can offer a cushion. Shared risk, shared value, shared responsibility.  A distaste for danger.  Hard money in the bank.

Those institutions were thus 'conservative' indeed during the financial crisis and the great recession that followed at the end of the Bush years.  The main difference was the structural ground for derivatives.  Our big banks had essentially been tradition-regulated out of most exposure to that market risk, unlike US banks/investment houses/brokers who needed bailout upon collapse of their derivative adventures. 

Not that our financial institutions outside the big banks weren't exposed and vulnerable, but that the big guys did not need sucking-sound  rescue on the scale of your losers in the USA. Thus no gigantic sums going down Wall Streets gunnels (our equivalent is Bay Street and a soberer place cannot be imagined).  

This tight-arsed risk averse conservative bottom gives some resilience to our economy.  But. I don't think this is something the average American would tolerate if it carried with it the suffocating mantle of the Canadian state. You would have had to have endured many hard years protected by the Crown in a vast and little-settled land, to accept such intrusions as compulsory medicare and government administered health care budgets. 

How to swing this back to Trump Humour?

Er, hmmm, well, Trump at one point found single-payer systems (of Scotland and Canada) congenial for some. He kind of has some Canadian urges -- like that nobody be left on the street to die -- even if that means public dollars have to be expended on that person.  Is that funny?

He promises a replacement for Obamacare that is better.  That's a good one. Obamacare is a million band-aids on a bloated public-private behemoth. Every incremental move towards fully socialized medicine in the USA increases complexity, not simplification. 

The funny thing might be that only Donald Trump could actually reform your healthcare hybrid monster. A Republican with iron will could insist on such things as "Universality" and "Portability."

Ha!

Edited October 9, 2016 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

 

He promises a replacement for Obamacare that is better.  That's a good one. Obamacare is a million band-aids on a bloated public-private behemoth. Every incremental move towards fully socialized medicine in the USA increases complexity, not simplification. 

 

 

That is as good a description of the Obamanation that is ACA  as I have seen.  It is like a Frankenstein monster,  sewn together combining the worst elements of corporate shortsightedness  and government incompetence  (is government incompetence even two words?).  

[9thdoctor]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is cute. Not a great production, but cute.

Michael

This belongs somewhere:

 

[Backlighting]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is cute. Not a great production, but cute.

Michael

Here's the chosen one reading from his book, "Dreams of My Father"

 

[BaalChatzaf]

33 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Here's the chosen one reading from his book, "Dreams of My Father"

 

what was he reading from???  I don't think those were his own words...

[Backlighting]

16 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

what was he reading from???  I don't think those were his own words...

I'm not sure...just relaying what some reply's to the video were. The thing is, he said the evil "P" word, in public. I don't remember the media covering this. -J

[BaalChatzaf]

42 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

I'm not sure...just relaying what some reply's to the video were. The thing is, he said the evil "P" word, in public. I don't remember the media covering this. -J

He was a Nobody back then.  And if he were reading from some book,  what he said would be processed differently from Trump's foul mouth remark. 

[Peter]

William wrote: Why ain't it quaint like New Orleans but everything is now English? Once you figure out that oddity at the centre of our federation, the rest of the differences click. end quote

I fail to see any distinctiveness in TWO mandatory, official languages. Their use is still forced upon the population with the mandatory learning of French and English in school and in certain areas you must speak those language to do business. That is the use of force, not freedom. So if in you think the center of your federation is the initiation of force that is a moral and political minus. And of course I DO advocate English as the official language of America, but if you want to impress your date by speaking French to a waiter, you are free to do so. Or you may speak Mandarin or Spanish in your home or anywhere to do business if you understand each other.

The article I referenced in “Imprimis” was by Frank Buckley and it was called, “Restoring America’s Economic Mobility.” In it, he mentioned greater economic, upward mobility in Canada, which is only behind Denmark . . . in the whole damn world. There is a top ten percent in Canada but their kids are much more likely to descend into the middle or lower class than America’s entrenched moneyed class. Canada is rated as having more economic freedom than the United States. There is less crony Capitalism up north.

Frank Buckley wrote: “To explain Canada’s higher mobility levels, one has to turn to differences in education systems, immigration laws, regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and corruption – on all of which counts, Canada is a more conservative country.”   

There is a better education system in Canada. And: “The paradox is that Canadians employ conservative, free market means to achieve the liberal end of economic mobility. “

William Sherk also wrote: This wall of banking didn't experience the trillion dollar sucking sound of value vacuum as did your wall of banks. The ultimate capitalization of our economy meant we could weather the following recession with spending we could 'afford.'  As ever, when the US goes into recession, it means recession for the intertwined Canadian economy. Sometimes the conservative nature of our institutions can offer a cushion. Shared risk, shared value, shared responsibility.  A distaste for danger.  Hard money in the bank. end quote

Well said. But all those movie stars who are threatening to leave America if Monsieur Donald Trump wins may go to France instead, when they find out how FREE Canada is.

Bill also wrote: . . . Trump at one point found single-payer systems (of Scotland and Canada) congenial for some. He kind of has some Canadian urges -- like that nobody be left on the street to die -- even if that means public dollars have to be expended on that person.  Is that funny? end quote

It is poignant William. A free market libertarian / objectivist can also support benevolence and orphan drug laws that use federal or state money to fund research into curing diseases that are only contracted or inherited by a few American. Frankly, I am impressed with Canada, Bill.

Peter Official English
O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Official bilingual version O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix! Ton histoire est une épopée Des plus brillants exploits. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

23 hours ago, Peter said:

if we discount a few things like the Canadian advent of socialized medicine, which America now has a version of, then Canadians and their institutions are more conservative than US.

The main thing Americans don't get about Canada is French. How did French survive in bulk up there on the Saint Lawrence river? Why ain't it quaint like New Orleans but everything is now English? Once you figure out that oddity at the centre of our federation, the rest of the differences click.

I fail to see any distinctiveness in TWO mandatory, official languages. Their use is still forced upon the population with the mandatory learning of French and English in school and in certain areas you must speak those language to do business. That is the use of force, not freedom. 

It helps if you go back and consider the French and Indian Wars, and put on French goggles.  When the French Crown was crushed in North America, finally, at Quebec, the English Crown conquered real human beings who had heretofore conducted their lives in French. 

There was an historic compact made with the French, not quite a treaty, not quite a royal decree, not quite anything but a proclamation and then an Act. The Quebec Act.  If you can grasp the ramifications of the Quebec Act, you know that this act would not have survived under the United States as a legal framework for 'the 14th colony.'

In simplicity, it was within the Crown's power to extinguish the use of French, to disallow it in government, to curb it in schools, to outlaw it in high council. Instead the Crown guaranteed the continuity of a French community and its  institutions.  At this point, Canada/Quebec were basically the same thing. So that guarantee -- the non-initiation of force to exterminate the fact, the lawful 'compromise' by an Act, this instantiated the Canadian State. The Crown allowed a 2nd 'collectivity' to stand equal to first as citizens of the Crown.

In an even pithier sentence, "Je me souviens." That's the state motto of Quebec. The ups, the downs, I remember. 

The French lost big league, but those French-speaking subjects of the Crown ultimately flowered, prospered.  That is the root of the Canadian 'deal' ...

In more recent times, the 'compact' between the English  and French communities was extended into law, as you suggest, with official bilingualism and multiculturalism enshrined in the Trudeau-written constitution of the 80s.  The mandate, the mandatory languages are incumbent upon the federal government -- to provides its services to citizens of either language group.  This was the fundamental notion of the Quebec Act and the articles of Confederation a century later.

If you can see  the alternative that was avoided, Peter (denying language 'rights' to the vanquished, taking active state measures to repress the language in courts, streets, commerce, religion, hospitals, schools ...), if you can see the fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Crown way back in the day, it helps you understand Canada's peculiarities and differences from the USA.

Quote

So if in you think the center of your federation is the initiation of force that is a moral and political minus. And of course I DO advocate English as the official language of America, but if you want to impress your date by speaking French to a waiter, you are free to do so. Or you may speak Mandarin or Spanish in your home or anywhere to do business if you understand each other.

At the centre of our confederation, at its roots in the Quebec Act, was a held-back force, a mercy upon the defeated 'enemy' leftovers. How an eighteenth century English Parliament decided to 'allow' free-ish expression and growth of a French community 'within.'

Quote

The article I referenced in “Imprimis” was by Frank Buckley and it was called, “Restoring America’s Economic Mobility.” In it, he mentioned greater economic, upward mobility in Canada, which is only behind Denmark . . . in the whole damn world. There is a top ten percent in Canada but their kids are much more likely to descend into the middle or lower class than America’s entrenched moneyed class. Canada is rated as having more economic freedom than the United States. There is less crony Capitalism up north.

I am going to time myself looking for the reference to Buckley. Go. 

OK, point six two seconds:

Restoring America's Economic Mobility - Imprimis

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/restoring-americas-economic-mobility/

1.  

Sep 5, 2016 - Support Imprimis. Imprimis. Restoring America's Economic Mobility ... Frank Buckley is a Foundation Professor at Scalia Law School at George ... Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advancement behind it.

Quote

Frank Buckley wrote: “To explain Canada’s higher mobility levels, one has to turn to differences in education systems, immigration laws, regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and corruption – on all of which counts, Canada is a more conservative country.”

On corruption, we do not generally burden the business person with sleaze. It is punished and always subject to excruciating investigation. Is that conservative or just more transparent and just?

On 'rule of law' that means we have no law on abortion. None. It is a medical procedure.  Is that  conservative? Is it more conservative that our Supreme Court is subject to no vote, but is installed by prime ministerial fiat? Is it conservative that Canada has an interventionist, liberal court?

Regulatory burdens are as intense in Canada as any advanced industrial democracy, from labour relations law to pollution to workplace safety to meticulous financial regulation. It isn't that our burden is lighter, but that it is simpler.  Is a carbon-tax (such as we have in BC) a burden? Yes.  Is it conservative?  Are regulations demanding environmental 'greenness' in building, energy, transport, engineering and so on conservative?

Maybe the point trying to be made is that some of Canada's attributes need comparison to America's.  For example, the Trudeau government just bit off a big chunk of controversy in re plans to de-carbonize the economy. A national carbon tax is a not too freakishly unlikely end of the current flaps.

One reason might be construed to conservatism, or business-like profit-loss calculations. In this frame, the most popular de-carbonize option for business and industry is a carbon tax. It is not as stupid and arbitrary as subsidies and breaks and the thousand little tinkery things a government tries to do to push to its targets.  It is still an economic hit to conservative commercial constituents, but it is seen as a simple, straightforward 'charge' -- predictable, universal, and so a better option than complex insane others on the field.

To immigration laws, this is hard to compare. On the whole, I would suggest that Canada's immigration laws are simpler than in the USA. For example, if you want to emigrate to Canada, you can go on a website and 'score' yourself. If you fit a certain demographic, with skills, and you can rustle up a job up here, then you are on the train to citizenship. It is a navigable system even for refugees and family-class immigration. 

To better explain the differences in underlying 'design' in our respective systems, I believe the goals are ultimately the same. Induct new Americans/Canadians fully into the economy and society, in all aspects. The only things we do differently or better perhaps are in the induction process. New immigrants are pretty much encouraged to go all the way to citizenship, and given roads to assistance in the community to upgrade their language skills to proficiency. The design is not to just to import immigrants, but to create citizens by process.

The other lasting difference is our collective public 'attitude' to immigrants. We are like you Americans in that we want Them to integrate. We are unlike you in that the integration takes place at higher rates of satisfaction.  It is easier to assimilate; to be a basic Canadian, there is a kind of lower bar. 

Quote

 There is a better education system in Canada. And: “The paradox is that Canadians employ conservative, free market means to achieve the liberal end of economic mobility. “

It is so hard to compare. We are both first world advanced economies, with world-class educational magnets in abundance. The difference again is by way of the ineffable Quebec Act and its philosophical entailments.  Why should any pupil in any classroom in any province be short-changed by shitty schools (compared to the best)? It's an economic Common Core kind of thing -- where do we allow poorly-staffed, unfunded, shitty, failing, half-failed and otherwise underperforming schools as institutions?  We don't, generally speaking. 

So, we don't have anything like the shittiest of the shitty schools in the advanced world as America does.  The public schools in every province still have a decent reputation, or at least our schools are all kind of within the Norm.

Now I will go and read the article you almost linked to, Peter, Thanks for the comments. 

Quote

William Sherk also wrote: This wall of banking didn't experience the trillion dollar sucking sound of value vacuum as did your wall of banks. The ultimate capitalization of our economy meant we could weather the following recession with spending we could 'afford.'  As ever, when the US goes into recession, it means recession for the intertwined Canadian economy. Sometimes the conservative nature of our institutions can offer a cushion. Shared risk, shared value, shared responsibility.  A distaste for danger.  Hard money in the bank. end quote

Well said. But all those movie stars who are threatening to leave America if Monsieur Donald Trump wins may go to France instead, when they find out how FREE Canada is.

Social mobility and economic mobility and international mobility are things that are part of the Canadian experience. Being born and raised in an area of chronic structural unemployment (Newfoundland and Labrador, the Maritimes) does not tie you to your hometown or region. Canadians are more willing than Americans to uproot, to move in search of opportunity, to relocate for success.  The very things that are socialist about Canada mean that the interprovincial mobility is supported by Medicare portability and universality. Nobody worries about the medicare implications of moving.

To the movie stars, anyone with a certain amount of money in the bank -- proof that they won't be a burden -- can cross that border, no visa, and then in a few months make a move to be a permanent resident. Under NAFTA, many professions do not face a border in the same way other people do.

France is, despite a relative stagnation in its institutions and economy, still one of those "I'd love to move to ..." places, most popular among, yes, the British. It is also the number one tourist destination on earth.  Despite its socialism it is also an advanced industrial economy.

But back to the 'free-ness' on either side of our mutual border, and a small advantage Canada built on conservative institutions.

Quote

Bill also wrote: . . . Trump at one point found single-payer systems (of Scotland and Canada) congenial for some. He kind of has some Canadian urges -- like that nobody be left on the street to die -- even if that means public dollars have to be expended on that person.  Is that funny? end quote

It is poignant William. A free market libertarian / objectivist can also support benevolence and orphan drug laws that use federal or state money to fund research into curing diseases that are only contracted or inherited by a few American. Frankly, I am impressed with Canada, Bill.

It's a big country, still under construction. We are on the whole hopeful and optimistic about our persons and our country's standing in the advanced world. As I said way above the boring sprawl here, understand why the Crown of England did not repress its new subjects in Quebec-Canada. How does our social and cultural capital get exploited? How 'fair' is Canada, how 'level' is the field, how principled and conservative are our bedrock institutions? How 'conservative' is the Canadian compromise and mutual-support tradition born in Quebec?

Lots of non-fun stuff to take our minds off the screams and laughter attending the last weeks of the campaign. Pardon me while I search down amusement.

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by william.scherk
Minor corrections

[BaalChatzaf]

30 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It helps if you go back and consider the French and Indian Wars, and put on French goggles.  When the French Crown was crushed in North America, finally, at Quebec, the English Crown conquered real human beings who had heretofore conducted their lives in French. 

There was an historic compact made with the French, not quite a treaty, not quite a royal decree, not quite anything but a proclamation and then an Act. The Quebec Act.  If you can grasp the ramifications of the Quebec Act, you know that this act would not have survived under the United States as a legal framework for 'the 14th colony.'

In simplicity, it was within the Crown's power to extinguish the use of French, to disallow it in government, to curb it in schools, to outlaw it in high council. Instead the Crown guaranteed the continuity of a French community and its  institutions.  At this point, Canada/Quebec were basically the same thing. So that guarantee -- the non-initiation of force to exterminate the fact, the lawful 'compromise' by an Act, this instantiated the Canadian State. The Crown allowed a 2nd 'collectivity' to stand equal to first as citizens of the Crown.

In an even pithier sentence, "Je me souviens." That's the state motto of Quebec. The ups, the downs, I remember. 

The French lost big league, but those French-speaking subjects of the Crown ultimately flowered, prospered.  That is the root of the Canadian 'deal' ...

In more recent times, the 'compact' between the English  and French communities was extended into law, as you suggest, with official bilingualism and multiculturalism enshrined in the Trudeau-written constitution of the 80s.  The mandate, the mandatory languages are incumbent upon the federal government -- to provides its services to citizens of either language group.  This was the fundamental notion of the Quebec Act and the articles of Confederation a century later.

If you can see  the alternative that was avoided, Peter (denying language 'rights' to the vanquished, taking active state measures to repress the language in courts, streets, commerce, religion, hospitals, schools ...), if you can see the fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Crown way back in the day, it helps you understand Canada's peculiarities and differences from the USA.

At the centre of our confederation, at its roots in the Quebec Act, was a held-back force, a mercy upon the defeated 'enemy' leftovers. How an eighteenth century English Parliament decided to 'allow' free-ish expression and growth of a French community 'within.'

I am going to time myself looking for the reference to Buckley. Go. 

OK, point six two seconds:

Restoring America's Economic Mobility - Imprimis

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/restoring-americas-economic-mobility/

1.  

Sep 5, 2016 - Support Imprimis. Imprimis. Restoring America's Economic Mobility ... Frank Buckley is a Foundation Professor at Scalia Law School at George ... Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advancement behind it.

On corruption, we do not generally burden the business person with sleaze. It is punished and always subject to excruciating investigation. Is that conservative or just more transparent and just?

On 'rule of law' that means we have no law on abortion. None. It is a medical procedure.  Is that  conservative? Is it more conservative that our Supreme Court is subject to no vote, but is installed by prime ministerial fiat? Is it conservative that Canada has an interventionist, liberal court?

Regulatory burdens are as intense in Canada as any advanced industrial democracy, from labour relations law to pollution to workplace safety to meticulous financial regulation. It isn't that our burden is lighter, but that it is simpler.  Is a carbon-tax (such as we have in BC) a burden? Yes.  Is it conservative?  Are regulations demanding environmental 'greenness' in building, energy, transport, engineering and so on conservative?

Maybe the point trying to be made is that some of Canada's attributes need comparison to America's.  For example, the Trudeau government just bit off a big chunk of controversy in re plans to de-carbonize the economy. A national carbon tax is a not too freakishly unlikely end of the current flaps.

One reason might be construed to conservatism, or business-like profit-loss calculations. In this frame, the most popular de-carbonize option for business and industry is a carbon tax. It is not as stupid and arbitrary as subsidies and breaks and the thousand little tinkery things a government tries to do to push to its targets.  It is still an economic hit to conservative commercial constituents, but it is seen as a simple, straightforward 'charge' -- predictable, universal, and so a better option than complex insane others on the field.

To immigration laws, this is hard to compare. On the whole, I would suggest that Canada's immigration laws are simpler than in the USA. For example, if you want to emigrate to Canada, you can go on a website and 'score' yourself. If you fit a certain demographic, with skills, and you can rustle up a job up here, then you are on the train to citizenship. It is a navigable system even for refugees and family-class immigration. 

To better explain the differences in underlying 'design' in our respective systems, I believe the goals are ultimately the same. Induct new Americans/Canadians fully into the economy and society, in all aspects. The only things we do differently or better perhaps are in the induction process. New immigrants are pretty much encouraged to go all the way to citizenship, and given roads to assistance in the community to upgrade their language skills to proficiency. The design is not to just to import immigrants, but to create citizens by process.

The other lasting difference is our collective public 'attitude' to immigrants. We are like you Americans in that we want Them to integrate. We are unlike you in that the integration takes place at higher rates of satisfaction.  It is easier to assimilate; to be a basic Canadian, there is a kind of lower bar. 

It is so hard to compare. We are both first world advanced economies, with world-class educational magnets in abundance. The difference again is by way of the ineffable Quebec Act and its philosophical entailments.  Why should any pupil in any classroom in any province be short-changed by shitty schools (compared to the best)? It's an economic Common Core kind of thing -- where do we allow poorly-staffed, unfunded, shitty, failing, half-failed and otherwise underperforming schools as institutions?  We don't, generally speaking. 

So, we don't have anything like the shittiest of the shitty schools in the advanced world as America does.  The public schools in every province still have a decent reputation, or at least our schools are all kind of within the Norm.

Now I will go and read the article you almost linked to, Peter, Thanks for the comments. 

Social mobility and economic mobility and international mobility are things that are part of the Canadian experience. Being born and raised in an area of chronic structural unemployment (Newfoundland and Labrador, the Maritimes) does not tie you to your hometown or region. Canadians are more willing than Americans to uproot, to move in search of opportunity, to relocate for success.  The very things that are socialist about Canada mean that the interprovincial mobility is supported by Medicare portability and universality. Nobody worries about the medicare implications of moving.

To the movie stars, anyone with a certain amount of money in the bank -- proof that they won't be a burden -- can cross that border, no visa, and then in a few months make a move to be a permanent resident. Under NAFTA, many professions do not face a border in the same way other people do.

France is, despite a relative stagnation in its institutions and economy, still one of those "I'd love to move to ..." places, most popular among, yes, the British. It is also the number one tourist destination on earth.  Despite its socialism it is also an advanced industrial economy.

But back to the 'free-ness' on either side of our mutual border, and a small advantage Canada built on conservative institutions.

It's a big country, still under construction. We are on the whole hopeful and optimistic about our persons and our country's standing in the advanced world. As I said way above the boring sprawl here, understand why the Crown of England did not repress its new subjects in Quebec-Canada. How does our social and cultural capital get exploited? How 'fair' is Canada, how 'level' is the field, how principled and conservative are our bedrock institutions? How 'conservative' is the Canadian compromise and mutual-support tradition born in Quebec?

Lots of non-fun stuff to take our minds off the screams and laughter attending the last weeks of the campaign. Pardon me while I search down amusement.

 

Canada is the Kinder, Gentler America.  You guys didn't have to have a Civil War that killed 5 percent of the population.

[william.scherk]

@KellyannePolls pic.twitter.com/y4Ne51Xx5B

— JoeMyGod (@JoeMyGod) October 10, 2016

[BaalChatzaf]

1 minute ago, william.scherk said:

As Golum would say.  Oh Preciousssssssss!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one has been making the rounds:

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was almost tempted to post on Virginia Postrel's Facebook post that appeared in my feed just now, but she can get really elitist in her attitudes. And sometimes, for my taste, the elitists get a little too precious in their leading questions. So I prefer to post it here. Besides, I don't want to bicker with her or her peeps.

Here's what she asked: OK, guys: When it's just men, do people really talk like Donald Trump?

And here's my answer: Ha! Inside the locker room, I don't know any hetero male who doesn't. Outside the locker room, I don't know any hetero male who does.  

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

Man what a rough few days in the campaign, this little dude is awesome:

 

[BaalChatzaf]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This one has been making the rounds:

Michael

Vince, the Fly?

[william.scherk]

Trump Silo workers and drones may have missed a whole lot of shaking of the pussy over Donald Trump's body language on that teeny stage in St Louis. The shaking of the pussy was trying to draw a scenario that Trump 'loomed' and 'stalked' and 'lurked' about poor Mrs Clinton as she spoke. That is the kind of thing you eek about if you are a Clinton Silo drone and generally weepy and suggestible.  There is even a meme out there trying to demonstrate that Tiffany Trump took a step back when Mr Headline Grabber went in for a smooch after the debate, but come on.

Maybe there were a couple of moments where Mr Trump struck a Mussolini pose, but nothing spectacular. Even when he quipped that he will see her behind bars, it wasn't' like he tried to be overbearing. That is just the way a non-pussy stands and moves and makes sure he doesn't look fat.

But then I saw this.  If you are looking to extract a cute moment from St Louis, this might be it.

 

Trump humping an empty chair while Clinton gives a nuanced explanation is the perfect metaphor for their campaigns https://t.co/EImrKdsQzr

— Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) October 10, 2016

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This was so cute, I couldn't resist putting it here.

LOL...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This was so cute, I couldn't resist putting it here.

LOL...

Michael

Ummm.  There go neighborhood.....(Tonto's great grandpa).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one is from Milo:

I don't know how they did it, but Clinton's looks improved in that photo. Still horrible, but a little more feminine...

Michael

[william.scherk]

There was something fair-minded about Giuliani, stern, tough, fair.  A little bit now. Used to be a lot with me. He is carving the ham with the Where Was Hillary On 9/11? schtick, though, IMO. The following tweet notes the fun non-funniness of the business. Insert cynical smiley.

 

"I don't remember seeing Hillary Clinton" on 9/11 - Rudy Giuliani, just now. Look to your left, Rudy. pic.twitter.com/zJbVFMDhuf

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) October 12, 2016

 

[turkeyfoot]

On 10/2/2016 at 6:31 PM, william.scherk said:

delete

[turkeyfoot]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

There was something fair-minded about Giuliani, stern, tough, fair.  A little bit now. Used to be a lot with me. He is carving the ham with the Where Was Hillary On 9/11? schtick, though, IMO. The following tweet notes the fun non-funniness of the business. Insert cynical smiley.

 

"I don't remember seeing Hillary Clinton" on 9/11 - Rudy Giuliani, just now. Look to your left, Rudy. pic.twitter.com/zJbVFMDhuf

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) October 12, 2016

 

Uh, oops. 

XYZ Media, Mr Sensationalist, said, "This is photo was photo chopped."

The hits keep coming.

The things a man will do for other septuagenarian men in the locker room. Cover for their memory loss. )

"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down," the Republican presidential candidate said at a Nov. 21 rally in Birmingham, Ala. "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obama sure thinks Trump is crass. The following is from PJ Media.

There's something about that headline...

 

The original is here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ya gotta do whatcha gotta do:

VIDEO: LEAKED EMAIL FROM WIKILEAKS PROVES HILLARY CLINTON READS A SCRIPT DURING TV INTERVIEW ON MSNBC

Here's the video:

Michael