canucks_14

For some reason I used to be super interested in these two paths in the US After med school cv peds 5+3 or 6 (few and harder to get into so basically assume 8) + 2 I think + 2-3 fellowships Also after med school combined nsx and plastics residency is 10 years + whatever fellowships but was definitely interested in doing 3 in spine surg onc and whatever clipping and coiling falls under can’t remember hah

29% of Latinos voted trump. 8% of blacks voted for trump. These numbers are slightly up from Romney. So, much to the dismay of privileged white left wingers, Trump actually was able to bring some Latinos and blacks in rather than alienating them. The fact that the numbers are somewhere near the unchanged mark is huge because many people thought the blacks and Latinos would support Clinton in droves, which they did not. Maybe it was just white privileged left-wingers who were upset with trumps so called racism. I mean there was a net gain in percentage of these votes people....I see all these posts on fb about how white america won, and how racism won....from privileged white Canadians lol. What a bunch of BS. Statistically trump brought more blacks/Latinos in than he alienated....that's what a gain is. What I find so hilarious is that in 2008 I remember watching an episode of Anderson cooper and Anderson did a huge report on how the drug cartel are becoming extremely dangerous in Mexico and are seeping in through the southern border. The report also mentioned that at much of the border, there is nothing...you can just drive across, no gate nothing. The very clear implication of the piece was that America needs a stronger border. Yet Anderson Cooper was not vilified but of course trump is. No mention of rapists of course but you get the point. Edit: to be balanced, I'm sure there is a certain percentage of minority race voters who are also dismayed by these results, but that's not the point (these groups lean democratic by a wide margin so that's a confounder anyways). The point is these numbers of Latino and black trump supporters are significant. On the whole, the Latino and black electorate did not care enough about trumps remarks to not vote for him. Also, the reason I bring these things up is that I find the disconnect between privileged whites and poor minorities more funny than anything else. Obviously I see the importance of social justice in the western world, and I know these people mean well. It's just funny how off the mark they are, which pretty much tells you that they really don't understand the issues of poor minorities. But to anyone reading this still going "wtf are you prejudiced Canucks?", Unfortunately I can't defend trump's comments on women. That's a whole other story, obviously can't defend any of that. But even at that, more white women voted for trump than they did for Hilary. Kind of shocking to me I have to admit. I had to look this one up and I'm not gonna pretend like I predicted this one. I was personally offended by his comments on women, but once again it wasn't a deciding factor for the majority of white women voters. But the racism thing....near 1/3 of Latino voters didn't care enough to not vote for him. That speaks volumes.

Anyone watch the debate?

Cool thank you for the links. Here are some for mine: -Political scandals in Canada where harpers conservatives have many. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_Canada -Couldn't find stats either but the best I could do is finding that many First Nations groups were critical of Harper. Specifically "Many Aboriginal groups were critical of the Harper government for cutting funding to a number of Aboriginal organizations and programs, and for refusing to release records related to residential schools to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Anger over the Jobs and Growth Act of 2012 also directly inspired the Idle No More movement". http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stephen-joseph-harper/ The reason I believe in this one without stats is because I've observed a subset of data myself. I've done work in First Nations communities, extensively at times, and invariably they either hate or don't like Harper. N is in the hundreds. Also various First Nations issues have been reported on in the media, and when Harper is involved, it is clear from reading the articles that Harper is at odds with First Nations., to put it lightly. I'm not providing links because it's easy enough to google First Nations and look at articles with this content during the conservative government time period. -Unifor study that says Harper has the worst economic record since the end of ww2 http://www.unifor.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/909-harper_economic_critique_eng_0.pdf I did sort of assume you did not believe in polls. Sorry incorrect assumption on my part.

Completely disagree re Harper vs trump. Harper wants to benefit himself far more than helping his country, whereas I feel trump wants to genuinely help his country. Let me ask you something, who is a bigger slimey sleazeball, Harper or trump? Harper has had so many scandals it's ridiculous, I already mentioned the fighter jets, but what about using people and robotic calls to phone liberal supporters to falsely tell them their polling station has changed in the 2011 election? Does that really sound like someone who wants what's best for the country to you? That oozes sleazy. There's other scandals as well. Not to mention minorities hate Harper. Asian immigrants are against Harper and First Nations absolutely detest Harper. I honestly think Harper is more of a bigot than trump. Let's compare the countries' two most oppressed groups. There's no way US blacks hate trump as much as Canadian First Nations hate Harper. I don't expect people to know that because First Nations don't have much of a voice here, but I can tell you I've been to the wide array of First Nations communities, and it is a certainty that they Harper. Trump isn't sleazy. Trump is just an asshole. But I'd take an asshole over the sleazeball any day. The asshole at least has the ability to be competent and achieve results, whereas with the sleazeball, there's an assumption that the sleazeball is not capable enough to produce any results which forces them to lie, cheat etc. I thought I remember hearing Harper was the worst Canadian jobs president since ww2. But what I do know for a fact is he has no major accomplishments in office. This next part I will say is just conjecture as I haven't looked into it, but I think Harper just benefitted himself and his oil buddies, I think that was his main objective rather than what you said of him helping his country. I'd wager more people would agree with my view than yours. As for Harper clamping down on extreme parts of his ideology, you are aware that Stephen Harper founded the current Conservative party of Canada because the old more moderate conservative parties were not far right enough for him right? As for the polls, I'm assuming you think a poll proves nothing because it is just one piece to the puzzle and you need all the pieces to see the puzzle. Well in regards to that, the article mentions that the polling aggregators have all seen clintons lead diminish. So it's not just the ipsos, it's actually all the major polls. The average may still be in clintons favor but not decidedly (as indicated by the aggregators) because her lead has diminished. Now if you actually have a distrust towards all polls, I'm not sure if that is a founded argument because I don't know the historical political data of polls vs actual outcome of an election. But why can't it be an Internet poll? Do you think that people are lying to the polls? I don't as I don't think that makes much sense, and people with more experience in politics who do it for a living don't distrust the polls so I assumed it had some validity. But I do agree that polls can change and it can swing any which way. So we could be having this conversation every week. I did bring it up but that's because I don't distrust the polls. And if you're disregarding the polls in favor of unfavorability, I still think polls are better than that metric because at least polls are a binary choice. It's one or the other for all intensive purposes because of the two party system. I can have unfavourable views of both candidates but I still have to make a choice at the end of the day.

Re: trumps chances being low, Latest ipsos poll has the race at a tie as of Friday. Hilary has steadily lost her 8 point lead she had on the 25th, presumably because of bad press on the pay for play Clinton foundation allegations as well as the ever growing email scandal. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-catches-clinton-latest-reuters-ipsos-poll-finds-215514755.html Also lets not forget that the wiki leaks founder has what seems to be game changing revelations on her that will be released in October. The only reason I say this is because the general population can make odd decisions. Canada had to call an election in 2011 BECAUSE Stephen Harper lied in court about the fighter jet scandal, and for some reason he actually WINS that very election handedly, So not only did he not hurt his position after lying in court but the conservatives actually increased their power and secured a majority government instead of the previously held minority. That is how the people voted. Yet the masses aren't aware of facts so they are in the dark and would never know. Harper basically slapped every Canadian in the face and the general populace is too uneducated and/or unaware to do anything about it. The guy must've honestly been laughing. Canadians like to think we would never elect a trump and that we're above that. But we already did. We had Harper. Much worst actually.

Re: rhetoric, ah ok gotcha. I don't think there's anything wrong with disagreeing but it turns out anyway I'm not a fan of the hateful rhetoric either, spill your guts!

I'd say terrorism and racial divisions are real serious issues so I wouldn't call it fear mongering.

I can't remember a DNC or a RNC with this much hype and enthusiasm.

Yeah some of that is really concerning. Thanks for the info.

Yes exactly that was the childish games that I was referring to. Very off putting for me as well. Can we all agree that a charismatic scientist as the leader of Canada or US is the way to go? Haha

Interesting. I heard there are more women executives at his company than men. Sure he can be crude at times but I don't think he has any gripe against women. Does he make fun of women? Yes he does. Does he also make fun of men with the same indiscriminate nature? You bet. Also Ive heard he does not want illegal immigrants in the country as he wants them to immigrate legally. Also at the RNC he said he would protect the lgbtq from terrorism. I think the guy is calling it as he sees it? I mean I still haven't heard anything from Trump that actually offends me. I would love for people to bring well sourced quotes that would likely state otherwise but I've yet to see it. His games are a bit childish at times and I'm a bit off put by that. But I mean I think a lot of people are just misinterpreting what he's saying. Everyone's so quick to sound the political correctness alarm when really that is not the point the people on the right are trying to make at all, the point is usually very different from what those on the left think it is (coming from my own conversations with friends). Also the media in which we view and consume our news is left and liberal. So I'm not really into being told what I should be thinking. I think a lot of people get confused that the news is not the end all be all. I guess it all comes down to that people in the center and the right see things differently from those on the left. I mean half of America is republican and I'd wager to bet half of Canada is conservative. So what's the point? The point is that half of the country disagrees with what you think in regards to the differences between the parties. So I mean why act like you are the all knowing authority on this when really you put forward no evidence. Even if it's not sourced why not mention something that trump said to piss you off and explain how it pissed you off. But on many occasions during the last year trump has been leading the polls so obviously a great amount of people actually agree with what the man is saying and don't disagree.

My premise is that a medical student may need many hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to accomplish their goal of completing medical school because that student hasn't earned and saved income of their own. Trump is similar in that he needed capital to accomplish his own goals. A successful medical student and Trump both needed to borrow money to start their careers. And in the case of a med student, the "ridiculously privileged" Trump received an amount not far off from what they will borrow during their training. Thus, someone who criticisizes a quality but then par takes in that said quality is a hypocrite, just as any logical observer can deduce for the case of the leftist med student criticising trump for the size of his loan. And the way that everyone on the left acts like it would be sooooo easy to turn a million into billions, yet 99.99 percent of millionaires don't make the jump to billionaire, that really grinds my gears as it is extremely naive. I wonder if these people realize that statistically speaking Trump's accomplishments are thousands of times more rare than anything they will ever accomplish in their lives. Yes that goes for doctors too. Also your points are irrelevant. Point 1 has no evidence to back its claim, you are simply using logical argument to think something is true about the way the world works because it makes sense to you yet I doubt you have objectively considered other positions on the matter. For example, you said given that rich people inherit....well I don't think that rich people inherit is a given and in fact I know a rich dad who would in fact discipline his kids for thinking such a thing. So clearly it is not a given in this world to paint this with such a large brush. Point 2 is refuted by my estimate of how 99.99 percent of millionaires ever make it to a billion. Sure I don't know the exact percentage but I can tell you there are maybe a few thousand billionaires in the world but there's an exponential amount of millionaires. Therefore not all people climb the ladder all the way. Once again an illogical fallacy that many seem to cling to when downplaying trumps accomplishments. Point 3 is the same as point 2. I have no political affiliation as my history has been diverse. I am simply a logical person who uses evidence in my life and calls it how I see it. Hopefully you will better see my premise. And if not, then maybe you can enlighten me on things that either weren't clear in your last post or misunderstood by me. Hope I was clear enough as it is still early for me here on the west coast, but looking forward to talking more to yourself as well as others on this forum on how they construe American politics. I seriously can't wait for the US election this year as well! Anyone else excited?

I find it funny that most canadian MD hopeful students are hoping to get a 250k loc and yet they badmouth trump for getting a million dollar loan and turning it into an empire. Pretty hypocritical. For Many US hopefuls their loans will be even closer to what trump borrowed.

Definitely don't idolize trump but he is a self made guy. He took his father's business in Queens and ended up becoming the biggest real estate developer in NYC, which his father was not. I believe these are the facts.