News   Jul 15, 2024
 723     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 882     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 625     0 

U.S. Elections 2008

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%

  • Total voters
    103
There is no doubt or no question that Trudeau is seen to be a much better then Mulroney by the general public.

I think there was a poll once and It was like a landslide. Damn it when he died in 2000, he was the story of the year in Canada.

It is simple why, Mulroney is this childish reclusive grumpy old man who still thought he was the best PM of all time and still thinks he is. This pisses of Canadians.

Trudeau left with a bad legacy but did not act like a grumpy old man and he made sure Mulroney failed and now thanks to Mulroney, Trudeau is seen as the better man. :D
 
There's no defending it, your comment was laughable.
I'm not defending anything, just explaining. I knew when I put Stalin instead of perhaps Bush or Clinton as examples of driven and successful politicans that I'd get someone claiming that I was comparing Trudeau with Stalin. If I was going to compare Trudeau to other politicians I'd pick one of the British labour leaders of the 1960s and 1970s. But heck, if I can give you a good chuckle then that's great too.
 
Trudeau is like a Canadian legend due to his antics and is seen by Canadians to be the only cool real leader in the last 40 years.

Meaning Trudeau left with a bad legacy but due to Mulroney's childish idiotic nature, the 13 years of liberal boredom and the now Robotic Harper, people now look at Trudeau and say, he was so different.


It is like how Regan and Clinton are no so revered because what followed next was much worse and actually made those men look pretty good in comparison.


From this discussion, it just shows that Trudeau is not the best Canadian leader ever but is undoubtedly the most famous and most well known Prime Minister ever.

Honestly, do you just spew out whatever comes to mind?

Trudeau is not a legend due to his "antics." He is well know for pushing through progressive legislation and working successfully to create a Canadian constitution and a bill of rights. If you think that is "antics" then I have to question what you know about the man.

As for Mulroney, you speak of his "childish idiotic nature." What the f*ck does that actually mean?

Your aimless musing on Clinton and Reagan are just that - aimless.
 
If you believe that being naive and uninformed is benign, then that's your opinion. Having lived through the Trudeau, Mulroney, Reagan and Clinton eras, I know otherwise.
 
You have proven that you've got an overinflated opinion of yourself before, this isn't anything new.

To the rest of us you sound like an angry old guy who stomps around and screams all the time.

No matter how valuable or worthless his comment was, you went flying off the handle for no reason.
 
You have proven that you've got an overinflated opinion of yourself before, this isn't anything new.

To the rest of us you sound like an angry old guy who stomps around and screams all the time.

No matter how valuable or worthless his comment was, you went flying off the handle for no reason.


Brandon, you appear intent on commenting on my response to what was written by someone else. Why is that? Could that be an overinflated opinion of yourself? This would appear to be the case when you speak of "the rest of us." Are you so confident to believe that you know the points of view of everyone on this forum. Sounds somewhat conceited, don't you think?

Sorry kiddo, but I did lived through the Trudeau, Reagan Mulroney and Clinton periods, regardless of your ignorance, ad hominem remarks and other pointless ramblings about me.

As for being old, if you are lucky you will become older yourself. Many people consider it to be a good thing. The fact that you have to raise age as means of derogation suggests a rather discriminatory point of view concerning people older than yourself. You should be wary of your own prejudices; you'll only be getting older, won't you.

Try to get a sense of proportion on the post in question. The remarks made by lormandeep are often vacuous, and I reserve the right to comment on them - whether you like it or not. It's hardly flying off the handle, and I'm sure he can defend himself if he chooses. Then again, I'm quite sure he wasn't even born when Trudeau was around, just as I'm pretty sure that you were not walking this world either during Trudeau's terms as PM.
 
LOL, there you go again. You've taken the opportunity to speak on my behalf on several issues. Why does anything you say really matter?

As far as the US Election and the real topic at hand, Obama seems to have gotten a huge bounce.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
 
I'm not sure if these new poll numbers will be sticking, afterall Dukakis had a terrific lead against Bush I at this point in 1988, but today there are different circumstances at play.

The Newsweek poll linked above showed a 51/36 split in Obama's favor.

Now a newer poll suggests not quite as strong of a lead, but he's still ahead by a good bit.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-20-poll-friday_N.htm

Obama leads Republican John McCain by 48%-42% among registered voters in the survey, taken Sunday through Thursday.
 
It will be interesting to see whether Clinton supporters move in numbers to Obama, and whether the religious right can swallow their self-righteousness and vote for McCain.


LOL, there you go again. You've taken the opportunity to speak on my behalf on several issues. Why does anything you say really matter?

You appear to have issues with reading comprehension.
 

Back
Top