Dougie93

Glass-Steagal would not have prevented 2008, as Glass-Steagal primarily is about a firewall between the retail side of banks and the investment side of banks, but the collateral obligations which were leveraging into a credit crisis, was going to take down the big investment banks on Wall Street, and then that would have taken down the retail banks downstream, so the taxpayer would have had to bail those banks out anyways, and Glas-Steagal would not have been involved.

Okay, if you say so, I guess. Immigration is frankly not my issue, I don't care, but moreover, if/when the immigrants flood in to overload and collapse the Canadian Socialist Nanny Police State welfare gulag, I will cackle with glee, please do, I'd be happy to be rid of it. I'll just buy my healthcare in the free market, from either the Americans and/or the Swiss /shrugs

Pretty sure Canadians would still buy US products and services the same as now, those products would just be made more expensive to them. You seem to be one of these people who is under the delusion that a tariff is some sort of force field, all it is, is a tax, you're taxing something for the crime of being imported, but that doesn't really impede people from buying them, especially American products and services which are so prized, it would probably make Canadians angry to be taxed on their American purchases, but they would still pay, they would blame you for it, but there wouldn't be a tax revolt, they'd just sit there and take it, who knew?

In the event of internal insurrection, at that point our de facto representative is going to be General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, would be reporting to the officer providing Canada with the logistics tail to conduct operations, since Canada doesn't have one of its own, and that man is at this juncture General Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy, Commander NORTHCOM at Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Not that General Vance would mind methinks, used to be my boss, he's a serious dude, so I would assume he would be looking for the Americans to step in, if the government screwed the pooch like that.

Just telling you how it would be. Obviously Canada doesn't provide for its national security, and so obviously the Americans have ensured that Canada has signed away authority for them to take control in the event of, under the Continental Defense and Security Agreement, all that just window dressing, they would do it even if Canada hadn't transferred that jurisdiction. Tellin' ya, Canadian Confederation is a failed state, it's propped up by the Americans and nothing else, you don't run your own national security, the Pentagon runs it for you.

Basically, if Canada goes to war with the Indians, since its the same Indians on both sides of the border, that would touch off in the USA as well, at which point the Americans would simply take control, Canadian Confederation would be decapitated, the politicians would be sent to the kiddie table to wait until they were summoned, the Continental Defense and Security Agreement would be invoked, and the Americans would sort it out, including having the Canadian military under their control, reporting to the American combatant commander at US NORTHCOM

The American Commander-in-Chief wouldn't side with you, if Canada ever incites an internal insurrection, the Americans will be all over that and will use it to their advantage by imposing themselves as arbitrators. That is to say, under the rubric of continental security Washington will step in put the screws to Canada using the indians are their leverage, by cutting Canada out of the process and treating with the Indians directly.

Not me, I would decline such an unlawful order, and so would the Chief of the Defence Staff, because the Chief of the Defence Staff has an awesome pension, and you can't spend your pension from jail, you'll have to recruit your own army if you want to do that. And without an army, I would suspect that the indians would just shoot you. /shrugs

1.3.1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 96 - meaning of "Convention refugee" 96. A Convention refugee is a person who by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries, or (ii) not having a country of nationality, is outside their country of former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country. Not seeing anything in there that says they must be fleeing conflict zones. Just says reasonable fear of persecution from where I'm sitting, where are you finding a mandate of conflict refugees only?

Indeed, the cabals are the Socialist Nanny Police State of the left propped up by the unions and the Prohibitionist Nanny Police State of the corporations. Perspectives are not silenced tho, I have a fringe perspective, fringe at this juncture at least, and nobody ever bothers me, don't be afraid to exercise your rights, the more you do, the more they are entrenched and inviolable.

Refugees don't just emanate from conflict zones tho, they also emanate from despotic tyrannical governments, which, outside the protection of the Americans and their Empire of Liberty, are legion.

Fool's errand, Canadian Confederation is inherently flawed resulting in de facto dictatorship by collusion among the entrenched interests which control all three major political parties, so all roads lead to Rome, and no matter how you vote you will end up with the same result with only the most modest of tweaks at the margins. The only vote which would count against this status quo would be to exercise your constitutional right to withdraw from Confederation as sovereign jurisdiction, under the Clarity Act. Not saying that would be a panacea, that is only the first step, to free yourself from the effective dictatorship and scale it down to size, then the votes you cast in your new state, while still subject to a Liberal Party of some sort no doubt, would at least be free of their dictatorial rule.

You can enter the markets without regards to your RRSP, that's just a tax delaying mechanism. There is risk, certainly, but there are ways of managing those risks, otherwise known as hedges, which allow you to sleep at night, and while they can be confounding at first, once you educate yourself as to how they work, then you realize it is a simple concept and not actually intimidating. If you are want to hedge against currency devaluation, being the only reason to put money in a mattress, in that case I would recommend that currency be gold and instead of a mattress you just keep it in a safety deposit box. Don't worry, the bank doesn't have access to that box, they are just renting the security of the box, what is inside remains yours no matter what.

I drank from the speculative cup, mea culpa, market capitalism is fun and profitable from where I'm sitting, and also, no crime where I come from, all my activities are legit and above board. Just hedge for eventualities, short as you like into the downside, then buy low, sell high, what's the big whoop?

I am privileged, pretty sure I'm one of the privileged, moreover a monarchist living in a monarchy is the height of privilege, monarchy being the ultimate expression of privilege. Doesn't bother me, I mean, obviously, so what is it that you think I am afraid of? You're not making any sense.

Companies would simply evacuate Canada and set up in the USA and trade with the Chinese from there, then ship their goods and services into Canada from the USA under USMCA /shrugs

I agree, although I would insert the caveat the Canada's as nations will never go bankrupt because a nation state in the Westphalian sense is not an economic entity. The Government of Canada could very easily go bankrupt and could for all we know be bankrupt right now, as bond traders can turn on a dime and bankruptcy can be incited by them in a trading day. The Americans might bail them out, but either way, austerity would be imposed from without and it would cripple their ability to conduct the activities that bother me, that would really chop them down to size, can't have a functioning Nanny Police State when you can't afford so many nanny police. Still haven't answered the question as to how it is you think that I am coward tho. I'm not clinging to this failed state, as I said, I'm hedged for its default and prepared to take a leap of faith into status quo in the wake of it, that is the opposite of cowardice, no?

As I said, my strategy is to adapt to market forces in order to profit from them so I can maintain my comfortable lifestyle, and the silly people of the Post National State, the absurd Orwellian contradiction masquerading as a government propped up by the Americans on their northern frontier, can do what they want. I am for obvious reasons duly hedged for a Canadian economic crisis. What is cowardly about that? I am not afraid, bring on the economic collapse of Canadian Confederation I say, it's of no consequence to me anymore, and the only way to be free of this nonsensical governance, is for it to go bankrupt, doesn't crimp my style, markets are international.

I merely said I make no economic proscription, proscription as in; prohibition, to prohibit being me trying to stop you from doing what you want, so how does that amount to cowardice on my part? Do you not speak the Queen's English?

How so?

Pretty sure Canada is not of particular significance to a twelve trillion dollar economy.

I make no economic proscription from internet soapbox, merely articulating the market forces at the core of the problem for Canada, as I simply live by adaption to market forces rather than pointlessly swimming against the inexorable tides, I'll just keep on doing that, Canada and its nonsensically silly failed state Confederation be damned. /shrugs

I'm a classically liberal limited government conservative in the tradition of British Westminster Parliamentary Democracy and associated Parliamentary Supremacy. Which is obviously opposed by nature to big government nanny police state overreach to solve problems not actually subject to.

So Argus goes on internet forums and publishes to the World Wide Web in perpetuity, vociferously and bombastically advocating that Canadian Confederation in right of the British Crown should commit Crimes Against Humanity by waging Genocidal Aggressive War of annihilation upon the First Nations, who are also subjects of the British Crown by solemn treaty, without regards whatsoever for national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, nor restraint, nor proportionality, nor humanity. Noted.

When those are subjects of the British Crown and so enjoy the protection of the Crown, as all the First Nations are and do, their resistance would be in the face of unlawful action taken against them, every nation has the right to collective and individual self defense UN Article 51, which mean the resistance would have legitimacy under national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, which makes them lawful combatants, and since they would have a case, launching into a battle of annihilation upon them would also violate the law of proportionality under the Hague Convention.