Indeed it is.

Conservative.

Unfortunately no.

This is for Canada's biggest province, not Canada itself.

Though it's a very good sign that Trudeau will be BTFO in the 2019 elections.

I don't know how, but I just have this feeling...

Because of all the "refugees" coming up from the States to flee away from Trump, Trudeau is going to piss off Quebec something fierce.

I just have a feeling.

You see, the Blue Wave is real.

CNN just forgot to add that it was for Canada, not America.

Though Trudeau is basically going to be betting all his cards on Quebec and BC for the next election.

Territories almost exclusively go NDP and the Prairies despise him for the diversity fire fighters.

West Coast is full of cucks by default, and British Columbia has Vancouver, which is basically Hong Kong at this point.

I don't think American dairy has to really worry about bagged milk that much, but I cannot help but love Trump for sticking it to him.

Canada and the US have a special relationship, I will agree, but it's recently become a very dishonest one. NAFTA hurts us both, hell, the loopholes even screw over Mexico too. It's good that Trump is ripping it up, at least I think so.

**the fire rises**

Mexico is a leech on both of us, but honestly NAFTA screws over them too.

Not the government, they're rolling in money and corruption.

But of the Mexicans who actually want to stay in their country and have it be... _less shit_...

Loopholes hurt them too.

Heck, that's the easiest way I've gotten people to agree with Trump up here.

Make the argument that NAFTA allows for loopholes in which companies can get around Mexican labour laws. When Mexicans are getting hurt, they listen.

Someone mentioned Paradox, I had to find it.

It won't mean anything since we got the majority.

They can yell all they want, they can't stop him.

Good on you.

Though, because there might be Paradox players around here, I have to dig up the picture of the most terrifying Canadian to ever exist.

For anyone who plays Hearts of Iron, play Canada more often.

Adrien Arcand.

A French-Canadian Nazi.

Who called himself the Canadian Fuhrer.

**He's the best.**

By the way, the Ontario Liberal party now has less than 8 seats, meaning that they've lost official party status and the money to campaign that goes along with it. They're going to have to survive on donations until the next election.

I just need to soak in the salt a little while longer.

**for once I actually want polling to be accurate**

http://is2.4chan.org/pol/1528428327614.png

For the record if I see Quebec flip to right leaning I will learn French and eat poutine as much as I can.

It's a crazy thought, but a man can dream.

You're going to have to get in line, China's been bending us over for a while now.

**EVERYONE WE'RE GOING TO VENEZUELA**

Not necessarily exclusive to one another, but unfortunately there is an overlap.

_muh sky daddy_

@ZoSo159 Regarding Jews as an ethnicity is very difficult because most records going back to the original tribes commonly associated with early Judaism have been lost or intentionally destroyed. However, Jewish as an ethnicity typically refers to a loosely connected strain of people with significant European admixture but some Levantine and Altaic blood involves as well. It's very difficult to actually put them to an ethnicity, but it usually refers to people being descendant of Jews but non-practicing.

Ragnarok, I would like to interject that calling all Asians descendant of Han would get you quite in a lot of trouble. Han was a very prominent and important Chinese dynasty but the breakup of cultures happened long before their existence.

It would be like saying that all Europeans are Romans.

...Asians in general. It sounds like Chinese revisionism.

You can say that the majority of Asians have descendants going back to the Han dynasty, but they are not all Han.

@ZoSo159 Because being told to go to discussion with this topic, I'll answer your question here. Goyim is a term that refers to non-Jews, though usually applied with a negative connotation. And the brackets are a sly way of referring to Jews, but it's usually with () instead.

@Deleted User Regarding the Han comment, I am only stating that the Han dynasty existed from the 3rd Century BC to the 3rd Century AD. Unless you are saying that the Han have demographically replaced the entirety of the Orient, saying that all Asians are Han is factually untrue, particularly as Indochina and a good chunk of Siberia are distinctly different from China.

You'll catch up sooner or later.

Except that the problem is that the most commonly accepted idea for where we got the name _China_ from, in any European language, is from the Qing Dynasty, which were actually Manchu, not Chinese.

Well, obviously, if a Manchurian comes in and conquers China, the people that the Manchurian rules over would be Chinese.

But then you just conceded that there are in fact differences between the Han and the Manchu.

Many places in the US will label Mexicans as white, but white Mexican doesn't mean the same thing as white Finn.

If you are referring to the people that primarily occupy the region of modern China, and you want to call them Han, then that would be fine.

But the historical Han do not make up all ethnicities within China, and especially not in greater Asia.

Then, please, do correct me. No sarcasm, I might be confusing myself.

What is it that you meant?

But the Han are not, because the Han only come up as a term after the _Han Dynasty_.

If you mean **Mongoloid**, that's something else.

It's not what China calls herself now.

China in the commonly accepted Chinese is _Zhongguo_.

Okay, but then my point remains that the Han didn't exist far back enough to say that all Asians are descendant from them.

And it's generally believed, so far as I remember from school, perhaps new discoveries have been made into racial history, but the Asian "race", as loosely as you can define it, the Mongoloids, came form the Steppes, not where China is now.

Perhaps, but I had to be autistically specific about this.

In any case, apologies for derailing you for so long.

I'm glad that we could be civil, in that case.

I'll try to answer it as best I can.

From what I understand as of right now, the Hamitics - going back into history as the term has fallen out of use - referred to Africans but not necessarily _blacks_.

The Kushites and Abyssinians were considered Hamitics for quite a while, but now they'd be Sudanese and Ethiopian.

Respectively.

On a technicality, they would be part of the Caucasoid group, which makes them cousins to whites more than whites themselves.

However, there's also significant admixture of Congoloids, now these would be the West African and down kinds of blacks that most are familiar with when thinking of Africa.

(Admixture of Congoloids has increased over the centuries, so DNA tests on preserved rulers and slaves tell us in these regions in East Africa, meaning they could've been paler back then.)

In this respect I'd say that the Hamitic people would be considered the "cousins", if that makes sense, of Europeans. Distantly related, further than Semitic people would be, but somewhat closer to Europe than contemporary Africa.

They could be, yes.

There's a lot of information that we don't know about the region and the people in their origins.

Not that white, really. Mediterranean tanned, but perhaps.

100%.

Somewhere along the line that's where all races would've come from, yes. But the most likely chance is that there was another group of people from before then who moved to these remote and inhospitable regions of Africa long ago and developed along their own lines to make what we now understand as Blacks in West Africa. (The Capoids were another race that lived in the southern reachces of Africa but they no longer exist anymore.)

If the blacks are descandants of Hamites, they're pretty heavily mutated, as they are surprisingly different from the regions in East Africa where the Hamites traditionally lived.

It could be, but it's more than just being black.

That is to say, while Congoloids are... very easily recognisable for their skin tone, they can also be set apart by the shape of their skull, certain muscle mass, there are even different levels of hormones between races.

It could easily be that, amongst many adaptations suited to Africa, them put together resulted in significantly darker skin.

It could also be that they just so happened to get this trait through mutation, and other groups didn't.

Australian aborigines, for example, have very similar skin colour, but are not African themselves and have different body compositions. All the same, they just so happen to share a skin tone.

It's for this reason that the British accidentally labelled them as a race that they're not, they're basically their own group that is distinct from others in the region.

But I studied anthropology, which anyone here would say is a waste of time, not biology. If you want to know the specifics, I'd recommend you check with someone else, I'm not an expert and probably made some mistakes here.

In any case, hope I could've been of some use before being called away.

To be honest, anyone who says anything about "Islamic Golden Age" is lying straight to your face.

Unless it's followed by "did not exist.", of course.

http://i.imgur.com/poJ48DH.jpg

Obviously it was such a good argument you just didn't get it.

@Jirka can confirm that, once worked with police

"Too many religions have overlapping stories."

Somehow this doesn't suggest that they might have happened, but that they definitely didn't.

Out of all the arguments I never understood this particular one.