placeholder

Unfortunately for Biden he had a couple of Dinos to deal with And, of course, you completely ignored the fact that Republicans were unanimously against it. Unanimously. And that Trump reneged on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with big pharma.

It was Republicans who unanimously opposed the biden administrations plans to let Medicare negotiate prices with big pharma. Biden got something passed but it wasn't as strong as it could have been had there not been strong Republican opposition. What's more, in 2016 Trump campaign on enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharma. He reneged on that promise after the election and even before he took office.

Whatever Ford's motives may be, the fact is that strident oppostion to Trump's plans for Canada is a winning issue. And the fact that the Liberals also stridently oppose Trump most likely figured in their recovery, too. What amazes me is that despite Trump's attacks on Canada's economy, and even on its legitimacy, there's a host of right wingers who deny that it's having a very significant effect on the Canadian electorate.

Well, Canada just had a real election in Ontario. Conservatives won a record victory. Doug Ford, the premier of the province, has been exceptionally hostile to Trump's plans for Canada. He even threatened to cut off Canadian electric power to the US. Is that real enough for you?

The only possible problem with that strategy is that Americans might mistake silence for complaisance.

You may have laid some of it out, but you offered no refutation. Your previous post was interesting but not relevant. At least not in the way you framed it. As I pointed out, if Ford is a clown, that makes his victory based on his strident oppostion to Trump, all the more impressive.

Speculation from one poster and and and unproven claim from another.

Depending on what information they shared, it could well be.

I see you have no answer for my pointing out that Ford being a clown is irrelevant to the significance of his victory anymore than it would be to point out that Donald Trump is a clown as being relevant to his victory. In fact, if your characterization of Ford is correct, that would only make his victory based on his opposition to Trump even more significant. In other words, despite the possibility that Ford may be a clown, he won a huge victory.

He won a plurality, not a majority.

Because Trump is so beloved in the UK that his support will be a plus for the reform party?

Clearly, you don't understand how parliamentary government works.

I trust you meant that as a joke? Or are you channeling the spirit Donald Rumsfeld?

Just because they quit their jobs doesn't mean they've had their memories wiped.

Funny how Trump supporters praise him for not having started a war and yet make threats to wage it once again. More hubris.

No. Irrelevant because the issue is how Trump has boosted the electoral fortunes in Canada of those who strongly oppose him and his threats. Or do you believe it would be relevant in the case of Trump's electoral victory to call him a clown? I don't. He may be one, but it's not relevant.

What does your post have to do with the fact that Robert Kennedy is now proposing to suppress suppress public comments. Your post would only make sense if you believe that all Americans are lefties. He is suppressing the ability to speak freely about the actions and plans proposed by his department weather that speech comes from lefties or righties or those in between. A right that those lefties who used to head the department didn't suppress.

If you don't want me talking to you about all that crap, keep out of the conversation.

Given that your original comment was completely irrelevant to the significance of his victory,, it's clear that you missed the point

Wow! Someone else who needs a remedial reading lesson. In another thread I just explained to someone what the significance of conditional clauses governed by "if" mean and what they do not mean. It means that what is written is not advanced as a fact, but merely as a possibility.

Your certainty is unwarranted by the facts of the case.

Now I have to give you a remedial reading lesson. But before I do that, I'd like to point out that would be typical for a right-winger to stop with that first sentence and not explain why you need a remedial reading lesson. Here's what I wrote: Given that it occurred in a Federal prison while Trump was President, it seems likely that if there was foul play there's a good chance Trump was behind it. You don't seem to understand the significance of "if there was foul play". I did not claim that it was likely that there was foul play on the part of Trump. In fact as I have pointed out in this very thread Trump supporters who push a conspiracy theory have repeatedly gotten the facts wrong. There is no good evidence that Epstein's death was due to anything other than suicide and incompetence on the part of a very badly run prison.

Childish? First, The White House excludes journalists who's organizations use Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America. That's not childish? Now Kennedy, who claims that the Department he heads has historically ignored the criticisms of Americans like him, now is excluding criticisms from everybody. "Snowflakism" is right on the money. But if you think "suppression of free speech" is a more appropriate label, by all means go with that instead.

As usual, you're missing the point. Being anti-Trump is that an effective electoral stance in Canada. And of course you're missing the larger implications. In a parallel topic posted recently, lots of right wingers denied that Trump's hostility to Canada I've had any effect on the political fortunes of the Liberals in Canada. What makes Yagoda's hubris particularly foolish is the spparent belief on his part that a trade war with Canada won't also hurt the US economy. Most Americans don't share Trump's ridiculous hostility towards Canada. And I doubt they're going to want to see their standard of living lowered for the sake of it.

I guess you were sleeping during the Clinton years: Not only was unemployment low, but in the final years of his term there was actually a budget surplus. Thanks in part to substantial tax increases which Republicans claimed would sink the economy.