Canadian Commercial Real Estate Thread

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Hm, quite the argument that broke out. I've read perhaps half of the last page or so and idk, I can't really feel an urge to actually want to see what's going on with the current political situation. Just a shit show seemingly with all the news going on now with China warning Trump, and Russia etc.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by geotag277

To be clear, I don't deny the concept of personality disorders. I am only claiming it is absurd for these arm chair psychologists to be diagnosing a political figure like Trump off the content of his 140 character twitter messages.

These types of attacks are highly politically motivated, and really muddy the waters and do a severe disservice to those individuals who actually do suffer from real personality disorders.

They need not to conduct a medical diagnosis to diagnose. The laymen's term would simply lop off the "disorder" at the end for legality sakes. So yes, Trump has an attention deficit and is a narcissist. It's not a disorder but he certainly has those qualities.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by GeneralLee(Toronto )

Hm, quite the argument that broke out. I've read perhaps half of the last page or so and idk, I can't really feel an urge to actually want to see what's going on with the current political situation. Just a shit show seemingly with all the news going on now with China warning Trump, and Russia etc.

I find all the outcry over Trump and Russia similar to Nixon's friendliness towards China. Forty years ago you would have the same mouths agape that a President would dare talk to such a regional, political, ideological foe such as China. Now, forty years later, no one bats an eye that North America and China are so economically and politically intertwined that our very economies are so disproportionately dependant on China for trade, access, and growth.

It's impossible to tell whether normalizing relations with China has been a net positive for world peace, because we'd have to invoke hypothetical parallel universes, but from my exposure to the situation I gather the consensus is that it has been on balance a positive thing for the world, and the least you can say is that the same might be possible with Russia.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

They need not to conduct a medical diagnosis to diagnose. The laymen's term would simply lop off the "disorder" at the end for legality sakes. So yes, Trump has an attention deficit and is a narcissist. It's not a disorder but he certainly has those qualities.

If we are now moving the goal posts to simply assert that Trump is human and has personality flaws, then I concede.

[vid]

It's amazing how the language changes with the president. When Obama was revealed to have expensive taste and sophistication, he was branded as elitist and out-of-touch. Donald Trump literally has a gold bathroom and brags about how his fame gives him a free pass to grab pussies and he's a hapless everyman whose biggest downfalls are little more than "personality flaws".

I think Trump supporters have to concede that he wasn't elected because of his strong platform, he was elected to throw a brick through the window of establishment. Except he is that window, and the brick was covered in crony capitalism. Imagine if Obama late-night drunk tweeted at every celebrity that ever criticized him?

And in spite of how much of an inept mess Donald Trump is, he still managed to prevent house Republicans from stripping their ethics commission of its powers. You take the good with the bad I guess. I can't wait to see how Secretary Goldman Sachs fixes the economy!

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by geotag277

If you remove the entire state of California's votes, Trump won the popular vote.

The last time I checked California was part of the United States.

Originally Posted by geotag277

Well, first of all, fact checking has been a bit of a joke. We've discussed this before in other threads.

lol! Well in the post-truth era where 60%+ of the statements the leader of the free world says are lies, then yes I suppose facts are a bit of a joke.

Originally Posted by geotag277

To be clear, I don't deny the concept of personality disorders.

Um...

Originally Posted by geotag277

No, I don't believe he has a personality disorder, and moreover I don't genuinely believe anyone really does

[vid]

OMG Mister F, you have to stop pointing out people's hypocrisies! You're not part of the lugenpresse, are you????

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by vid

It's amazing how the language changes with the president.

It's actually not that amazing. You are simply assuming that each party has a monolithic cult-ish block of individuals who vote for them, who all think the same, and all say the same things.

This isn't true. It's entirely possible that the same individuals who criticized Obama for being out of touch, switched to Hillary in 2016 from Romney in 2012. Hillary attracted a large number of republicans and independents in states that ended up not helping her at all, eg. Texas and Georgia.

Trump managed to attract a large number of democrats and independents who previously voted for Obama.

These demographics are very dynamic, and just because you can find two individuals who say contradictory things, doesn't really mean anything.

This broad brush interpretation of politics which lacks any form of nuance is the wrong direction for discourse to be heading.

I think Trump supporters have to concede that he wasn't elected because of his strong platform, he was elected to throw a brick through the window of establishment.

Again, he wasn't elected for any one specific reason. I would say his anti-unfair-free-trade positions largely played well with economically struggling states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania & Ohio probably is what put him over the top.

Except he is that window, and the brick was covered in crony capitalism.

His cabinet objectively contains more people with experience that derives from real world business experience versus career politicians. I am amazed he was able to get figures like Rex Tillerson to leave their high profile business positions to move to Washington DC and join the political circus.

He also loudly denounces congress, arguably the most dysfunctional part of the Washington political machine. If he can deliver on term limits and lobbyist restrictions on congress he will have done more for American democracy than any previous president in our lifetimes.

[lio45]

I agree with geotag, it's true that the media factcheckers were pretty biased against Trump. I mean, you can make these stats say pretty much what you want, depending on how you count "lies". If an amount is mentioned that is slightly off, you can count that like you want. If he happens to say "Lincoln plant" instead of "Ford Motor Co. plant", you can choose to count that as a lie. And so on.

A few months ago, I decided to dig deeper into that factchecking as part of a SSP conversation we were having in the U.S. Election thread, and found that they weren't treating Trump very fairly. A lot of his so-called "lies" were actually merely just approximations, which IMO is a completely different thing.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Um...

First, understand that English is by nature an ambiguous language. Then re-read the sentence I typed and understand that it has multiple interpretations. Then, understand that your interpretation of said quoted sentence is not the interpretation I meant.

As a hint, the target of the noun "anyone" is not "anyone has a disorder", but "anyone really thinks he has a disorder".

Level of discourse = gotcha games and intentionally misinterpreting quotes. Is it any wonder no one takes you guys seriously?

[vid]

Originally Posted by geotag277

First, understand that English is by nature an ambiguous language.

The good ol' "He says what he means, but don't take it literally!"

Here's a hint: use a couple more words so your statement isn't so ambiguous and people can't use it to attack you.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by vid

The good ol' "He says what he means, but don't take it literally!"

Here's a hint: use a couple more words so your statement isn't so ambiguous and people can't use it to attack you.

Your replies have gotten so lazy you aren't even bothering to read context before you type. I was replying to him parsing my sentence wrong.

You clearly have a political opponent caricature in your mind about with whom you are debating. Unfortunately, it is no one who is actively contributing to this thread.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Here's a hint: use a couple more words so your statement isn't so ambiguous and people can't use it to attack you.

Or, alternatively, resolve the ambiguity via discussion and further explanation in the event other forumers decide to "attack you" based on a misunderstanding. It works too...

Your default assumption is that geotag went and stated that he didn't think anyone out there could have a personality disorder? The opposite interpretation seems to me more likely. And in any case, as I pointed above, why even assume when we can easily get the answer from the horse's mouth.

[vid]

Can you guys please clarify everything you just said? I don't want to be accused of parsing your sentences wrong when I respond.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by lio45

In both countries you can become leader without a majority of the vote, but the bar for that is even lower in Canada (where high 30%s support suffices).

That's how it works in any race with more than two candidates - the difference is that at least in Canada the winner is the candidate with the plurality of votes. What's more fair - one where the winner takes 40% against 30% for each of the other two candidates, or one where the winner takes 45% of the vote compared to 55% for the loser? Neither are ideal (and both are easily rectified), but on the question of "fairness" it should be clear which is worse.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by vid

Can you guys please clarify everything you just said? I don't want to be accused of parsing your sentences wrong when I respond.

This, my friends, is what constitutes political discourse in the John Oliver/Jon Stewart era.

If you are interested in why it may be impossible for me to use enough words to remove all possible ambiguity, I redirect you towards some light Sunday evening reading.

May I suggest in the future to simply ask the speaker to clarify, which I did.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's how it works in any race with more than two candidates - the difference is that at least in Canada the winner is the candidate with the plurality of votes. What's more fair - one where the winner takes 40% against 30% for each of the other two candidates, or one where the winner takes 45% of the vote compared to 55% for the loser? Neither are ideal (and both are easily rectified), but on the question of "fairness" it should be clear which is worse.

It's not clear, because in the case where say, balanced budgets are the most important voting criteria for 60% of the population, and they end up splitting their vote between 30% for one party that advocates balanced budgets, and 30% to another party that advocates balanced budgets, you end up with 40% of the constituency deciding that balanced budgets aren't important.

Such a lopsided situation is not as likely in the latter case, as it is much harder to alienate such a large portion of the electorate who have such a strong single issue criteria.

I would also add that considering these systems in a vacuum is also philosophical navel gazing. As lio correctly points out, the American system has a robust system of checks and balances through other representation in Congress such that the will of the voters is made redundant across several levels of the Federal government. We can't say the same, and as such voters are much more likely to be alienated in our system.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's how it works in any race with more than two candidates - the difference is that at least in Canada the winner is the candidate with the plurality of votes. What's more fair - one where the winner takes 40% against 30% for each of the other two candidates, or one where the winner takes 45% of the vote compared to 55% for the loser? Neither are ideal (and both are easily rectified), but on the question of "fairness" it should be clear which is worse.

Actually, no, it's not clear. All I have to do to prove you wrong is get back that Harper-era FPTP-panning cliché from the mothballs - the one where the candidate getting 40% is a dog, and the two candidates getting 30% each are cats, while in the U.S. the dog would prevail with 45% over the cat with 55% which is already somewhat less unfair to felines.


(Not to mention that the dog that wins in Canada gets four years of absolute power, with nothing the cats can do; in the U.S., if Congress is controlled by cats, which would be the case in such a popular vote situation, then the dog's power will be sharply restricted.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Can you guys please clarify everything you just said? I don't want to be accused of parsing your sentences wrong when I respond.

Rest assured that if you interpret me wrong in a response to me, I will be politely pointing it out and providing the necessary clarifications. No need for this paranoia.

The reverse is true as well, if you think I've misinterpreted your position, by all means, point it out.

This is a discussion forum, it's the whole point...

[vid]

Originally Posted by geotag277

This, my friends, is what constitutes political discourse in the John Oliver/Jon Stewart era.

If you are interested in why it may be impossible for me to use enough words to remove all possible ambiguity, I redirect you towards some light Sunday evening reading.

May I suggest in the future to simply ask the speaker to clarify, which I did.

If you had correctly parsed me sentence, you would understand that this is a minor discussion in a subsection of a minor internet forum about not-the-thing-we're-discussing and no matter how good our debate is, nothing will actually change. Not between us, and not geopolitically.

I'm just here to have fun and spend time, I'm not sure what your intentions are. Unless Justin's ministers have been ordered to read thread number 226573 on forum.skyscraperpage.com, I don't think we're going to affect much change with our discussion.

Originally Posted by geotag277

As lio correctly points out, the American system has a robust system of checks and balances through other representation in Congress such that the will of the voters is made redundant across several levels of the Federal government. We can't say the same, and as such voters are much more likely to be alienated in our system.

For president, the Democratic candidate was favoured by 48.2% of the electorate to 46.1% for the Republican. The Republican won.

For senate, Democrats were favoured by 53.8% of the electorate to 42.4% for Republicans. Republicans won.

For the house, Republicans got 49.1% of the vote, Democrats 48%, but Republicans received 55.5% of the seats compared to 45.5% of the seats for Democrats. So at least that's close.

Harper and Trudeau both ended up with 54.5% of the seats with 39.5% of the vote in the previous two elections.