BeaverFever

Yeah so? She didn’t cheer for Hamas. She just chose the wrong time to criticize Israel. Your beloved Putin trolls are acting cheering on Hamas.

“Apperently [sic] Egypt behind Trudeau's low popularity” You’ll have to quote the prt of the article that makes that assertion because I didn’t see it anywhere Again, no such assertion is made in the article The fact that it’s a foreign troll farm is relevant And the hyperbole, polemics, comparisons to Hitler, photoshopped images of someone’s head on the body of a Turkey…look I know you suffer from that conservative disease where you can’t differentiate that kind of garbage - or any of your subjective opinions - from “objective facts” but the reality is it’s not all true. The far right seems to love offshore troll farms. Philippines is another location popular with the conservative fake news outlet crowd.

So you’re FINALLY admitting he called for Muslim ban? PS many Palestinians are Christian

Nice try. Explain to my why war in your opinion is the best option in this case but not in Russia’s case. Russia and Hamas are at the very least indirect allies as evidenced by the return of the actual Russian internet trolls cheering for Hamas amd Russia has ling history of supporting anti-western terrorists, including offering Afghan terrorists a bounty ro kill US troops

Everyone makes judgments bases on incomplete info as 100% info is never attainable. You are making judgments based on ZERO info. Judhments that don’t even make sense logically. There are 10,000 reasons why this attack is the absolute LAST thing Biden needs or wants right now with everything else that is going on in the world. But your baseless speculation that he randomly decided to mastermind this attack out of the blue just because that’s the kind of evil person he is outrageously absurd. And your suggestion that it somehow helps push a 2-state solution is also ridiculous. If anything it makes any solution or compromise impossible. The only people who benefit from this attack are people who want to preserve the ongoing state of forever-war, and those people are the conservative wings of the Palestinian, Israeli, Iranian and US governments. .

That is a ridiculous and absurd statement and not supported by anything logical or factual. On any level.

I don’t think this attack happened because Iran realized it realized it will soon have an extra $6bn in overall purchasing power I don’t think Palestinian gunmen on motorcycles cost that much. As for Biden’s actions and America’s enemies, well we know that if he adopts a strong posture he will be accused of provoking them and escalating tensions and if he adopts a soft posture he will be accused of encouraging and emboldening them by showing weakness. So no matter what he does or doesn’t do the Right will blame him. A normalized Saudi-Israeli relationship could be a his legacy and a big game-changer in some ME power dynamics (although Saudi and Israel have been secret ad-hoc partners for decades including colluding with Pakistan and USA to arm the Taliban and pre-Taliban going back to the 80s).

You say the most ridiculous things. Why would Biden be a part of this? For the record, the $6Bn of Iranian funds recently unfrozen by US was part of a deal to return 5 US prisoners held in Iran and is completely unrelated to this attack. Iran does not even receive the money, it is held snd controlled by a third party trustee outside of Iran and can only be used for purchases of humanitarian items such as food etc.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the attack was supported by Iran. Hamas belongs to the “Axis of Resistance” an unofficial alliance of groups sponsored by Iran that includes Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and multiple Iraqi and Syrian militias. The main reason for the surprise attack is likely because Saudi Arabia is currently in the process of officially normalizing relations with Israel under the guidance of the Biden administration. This would have been bad news for Hamas and Iran who are clearly trying to sabotage that arrangement. Hamas is not Palestine as a whole , it is a political faction within Palestine and not even a popular one amongst Palestinians at that however it does have a solid grip on power within the walls of Gaza. Also as we see here, our resident official pro-Kremlin propagandists have returned this time cheering on Hamas. Groups like Hamas have been long-time friends of Russia and their friendship has been strengthened vis-a-vis mutual allies such as Iran and Syria. Instability in the middle east - or anywhere in the world except Europe really- helps divert western resources from Russia’s failing invasion of Ukraine.

Wait on the Ukraine thread you claimed to be a pacifist who only wants peace and call everyone else a warmonger. Hypocrite much?

I was thinking the same thing it makes no sense. I don’t have my hopes up for anything not even replacement of the 8 donated to Ukraine. If we even get that we’ll be very lucky. I thought I had read that it was 12RBC who was sharing a mixed squadron with RCD and the lucky Strathconas got a full squadron for themselves

To maintain or replace? That is the question for Canada’s tank fleet. David PuglieseTuesday, Oct 3 VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada is deploying tanks on an overseas mission for the first time in more than a decade, but the future for the country’s armored fleet remains uncertain. The first of 15 Canadian Leopard 2 tanks are expected to arrive in Latvia in mid-November as part of efforts to shore up NATO’s presence in that Eastern European nation. While that is taking place, work is underway in the Canadian Army to determine how best to maintain and support the aging tank fleet while trying to decide whether to replace the platforms. An estimated CA$1.5 billion (U.S. $1.1 billion) will go toward the new Leopard long-term support contract, according to Defence Department spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande. That contract will see maintenance and support services for the Leopard 2 fleet in place until the tanks’ forecast end of life, currently scheduled for 2035. “The scope of work will include key services such as maintenance support, upgrades as required, supply chain management, engineering support and technical support for the Canadian Leopard 2 fleet,” she said. The Canadian Army had 82 Leopard 2 main battle tanks, but donated eight to Ukraine amid its fight against a Russian invasion. Canada has identified German company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann as the sole-source provider for the long-term contract. “We expect a contract award by spring 2024,” Lamirande said. In addition, the Canadian Army briefed industry representatives on April 3 in Ottawa about a proposed plan to modernize the Leopard fleet. Army Lt. Col. Chloeann Summerfield noted the tank life extension would cost more than CA$850 million and deal with obsolescence issues as well as technology improvements. The project is in its early stages but would prioritize improvements to the Leopard 2′s protection, surveillance, target acquisition, firepower and mobility, Summerfield told industry officials. The Army would also seek cooperation and a common configuration for such upgraded vehicles with other users of the Leopard, according to the presentation, obtained by Defense News. A request for bids from industry for the life extension effort is to be issued around 2028, with the first fielding of the upgraded tanks starting in 2030, the presentation noted. One of the considerations is a “limited budget” for the project, Summerfield said. Financial barriers will also impact Canada’s decision on whether to buy new tanks to replace the Leopard 2 fleet, according to Canadian defense observers. Martin Shadwick, a professor of Canadian defense policy and the military at Toronto’s York University, said the Army has had a contentious relationship with tanks. In October 2003, Lt. Gen. Rick Hillier, then-commander of the Army, announced Canada was retiring Leopard tanks from service and would purchase the U.S.-made Stryker Mobile Gun System, a wheeled vehicle, Shadwick noted. At the time, Hillier said the Army’s Leopards had served their purpose but were of limited use in warfare, as the enemy was no longer Russia but rather terrorists in austere environments like Afghanistan. However, several years later, the Army’s new leadership reversed course, instead sending Leopard tanks to Afghanistan in 2006. Canadian military leaders fighting in that country had requested the tanks, as their heavy armor provided more protection against improvised explosive devices. Since the end of the war in Afghanistan, Canadian tanks have been limited to training exercises at home. The Canadian government has committed to buying a limited number of new tanks to replace the eight Leopards it donated to Ukraine over the past two years. In February 2023, then-Defence Minister Anita Anand announced the acquisition plan, but it’s yet to move forward. A Royal Canadian Air Force CC-177 Globemaster delivers a Leopard 2A4 tank to Poland on March 17, 2023, as a part of Canada's commitment to donate the platforms to Ukraine. (Master Sailor Valerie LeClair/Canadian Armed Forces) The office of Bill Blair, the current defense minister, would not provide specific details about that potential purchase. Daniel Minden, Blair’s press secretary, pointed out that “capability requirements are being reviewed by the Army to ensure capability replenishment and interoperability. Plans and timelines remain to be determined.” For his part, Shadwick doesn’t expect the government will buy new tanks in the near future, including those meant to replace the Leopards now in Ukraine. “There is a real lack of funding for procurement, and new tanks are way down the list of priorities for the Canadian forces,” he said. Former defense procurement chief Alan Williams agreed, noting major military purchases, such as F-35 fighter jets and the new Canadian Surface Combatant ships, leave little funds left over for tanks. The annual budget for defense equipment acquisitions is CA$5 billion, but much, if not all, will be earmarked for the fleet of surface combatants, Williams told Defense News. The surface combatants are estimated to cost CA$100 billion over the next 20 years. Canada has also committed to spending CA$40 billion to modernize North American Aerospace Defense Command — a figure that includes the purchase of F-35s — and another CA$6 billion on new P-8 patrol aircraft. “I can’t see how the Army can even contemplate the acquisition of new tanks,” Williams said. “A lot of potential equipment projects will be seriously affected by programs already committed to by government.” David Pugliese is the Canada correspondent for Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/10/03/to-maintain-or-replace-that-is-the-question-for-canadas-tank-fleet/

Konservative Konspiracy Kook kraziness rears its ugly head again

Lol No. It’s because he’s required to obey a law that was passed by CONGRESS prior to him becoming president . What don’t you understand? BTW the section of wall is only 17 miles long, it’s a relatively small section

So the Biden administrations opposition to the wall hasn’t changed but congress already appropriated the funds during the trump years so they had no choice President Joe Biden on Thursday said his administration had no choice but to build about 20 miles more southern border wall -- after he's long dismissed Donald Trump's wall as a waste of money that doesn't work to stop illegal immigration. "Money was appropriated for the border wall," Biden told reporters, referring to congressional action during the Trump administration. "I tried to get them to reappropriate -- to redirect the money. They didn't, they wouldn't. And in the meantime, there's nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what is appropriated. I can't stop that." The White House proposed funds for border barrier construction be rescinded in 2021, but Congress essentially ignored the request…. “We had no choice,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Thursday during a press conference in Mexico. “It was mandated by law. We requested that Congress rescind the direction. It did not do so. We, of course, must follow the law. Our policy remains as it was since day one. We are opposed to the construction of the wall.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/biden-claims-choice-build-trumps-border-wall/story?id=103757017

Biden may have his senior moments but Trump is an unhinged and crooked mor0n who didn’t know sh1t about government or anything and tried to behave like like child dictator, a modern day Caligula. From the comical to the criminal, there’s never been anyone so far into the top right quadrant of the stupid/crazy axis in the White House. Never has a president been so denounced and criticized by so many of his own hand-picked cabinet members and White House staffers. Also, Trump carried out far more drone strikes than any other president. By his second year alone Trump had carried out more Drone strikes than all 8 years of the Obama presidency. At the same time he cancelled Obama’s requirement for the White House to approve drone strikes and the requirement for the military, allowing the military to engage at will without presidential approval and he also revoked the requirement to report numbers of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Diefenbaker and Pearson gave us the Canada that polarization could tear down Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker at the Federal Provincial Constitutional Conference in Ottawa on Feb. 11, 1969.John McNeill/The Globe and Mail John Ibbitson is writer at large at The Globe and Mail. His latest book is The Duel: Diefenbaker, Pearson, and the Making of Modern Canada. Though he was recovering from pneumonia, John Diefenbaker agreed to meet Lester Pearson in the prime minister’s office in East Block on Friday, Dec. 11, 1964, to discuss the case of Gerda Munsinger. Diefenbaker knew the room well. It had been his office for six years, until Pearson defeated him in the 1963 federal election. Pearson had learned from the RCMP that Munsinger, an attractive German refugee, prostitute and possible Soviet spy, had slept with at least one former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister. He had sent Diefenbaker a letter demanding to know what the former prime minister had done about it. I ordered the minister to end the affair, Diefenbaker told Pearson at the meeting. Pearson said he feared national security had been compromised. It wasn’t, Diefenbaker insisted. The conversation grew heated. In his memoirs, Diefenbaker said Pearson, whom everyone called Mike, tried to lower the volume. “We should not talk to each other like this, John.” “I didn’t write the letter that you sent to me, Mike.” Pearson maintained that he was not really a politician. “I am a diplomat.” “You are no diplomat,” Diefenbaker shot back, as he walked out the door. The Munsinger affair became public in March, 1966, one of a succession of scandals – the Lucien Rivard affair would curl your hair – that tormented the Pearson governments. Diefenbaker and Pearson came to despise each other during a decade of warfare in the House of Commons and on the election trail. The Canadian public came to despise the two old men, clawing at each other while seemingly oblivious to the Sixties’ social revolution under way. In 1968, voters turned to Pierre Trudeau to bring Canada a new generation of, and approach to, leadership. Popular wisdom today holds that Diefenbaker was a failed prime minister, the leader who presided over two recessions, who cancelled the Avro Arrow and who made a fool of himself during the riotous Coyne affair, when his government tried and failed to fire the rebellious governor of the Bank of Canada. (James Coyne eventually resigned of his own accord, after pleading his cause before the Senate.) Pearson, in turn, is credited with the Canada Pension Plan, medicare, the immigration points system and the national flag. That perception masks a deeper truth. Even as they fought each other, Diefenbaker and Pearson together constructed the social safety net that supports us today. They demonstrated what can be achieved when the political class draws from a deep well of social and political consensus. And their achievements stand as a warning of what we could lose if we let polarization tear down what they helped build. A healthy democratic society encourages rivalry grounded in trust. Political parties debate whether to raise or lower taxes, expand or limit social programs, support or oppose a certain foreign policy. But they and the citizens they represent accept the integrity of institutions: legislatures, the justice system, schools, the military, the media. In the 1950s and 60s, Canadians had good reason to trust those institutions. The country had fought alongside its allies to defeat the Axis powers. After the war, the federal government brought in new programs to educate and house returning veterans, built highways and airports and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and guided a rising prosperity that created a new suburban middle class. Big Government had won the war. Big Government had won the peace. Big Government wanted to do more. Before the war, those who could not afford to pay a doctor depended on charity or did without. Recent years had witnessed amazing discoveries: new antibiotics and vaccines and anesthetics and surgical procedures. There were even new treatments, however imperfect, for heart disease and cancer. But who could afford these miracle cures? Shortly after becoming prime minister in 1957, Diefenbaker embraced a program developed but not implemented by his predecessor, Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent. The Diefenbaker government, in co-operation with the provinces, created universal public hospital care. Those who were seriously ill no longer needed to fear the financial cost of a trip to the emergency ward or life-saving surgery. Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas decided to go further, extending the program to family physicians. Should the rest of Canada do the same? Diefenbaker asked Supreme Court justice Emmett Hall to provide the answer. The prime minister and the judge had been friends since law school; Diefenbaker well knew what Hall would conclude. By the time the Royal Commission on Health Services released its recommendations in 1964, Pearson was prime minister. He implemented most of Hall’s recommendations. Medicare came to Canada. Until the late 1950s, officials in the immigration department dedicated themselves to preventing anyone who was not white from obtaining citizenship. Diefenbaker, who had suffered discrimination throughout his life because of his German name, appointed Ellen Fairclough, the first female cabinet minister, to the immigration portfolio. With his support, Fairclough cleaned out the department and, in 1962, announced a new order-in-council. “Any suitably qualified person from any part of the world can be considered for immigration to Canada entirely on his own merits without regard to his race, colour, national origin or the country from which he comes,” she told the House of Commons. Henceforth, Canada would select its immigrants “without discrimination of any kind.” When the Liberals took office, they built on the Progressive Conservatives’ reforms by creating the race-blind points system for selecting immigrants, one of Pearson’s, and Canada’s, finest achievements. Diefenbaker and Pearson together forged the policies that created today’s multicultural Canada. Diefenbaker won the election of 1957 in part by criticizing the St. Laurent government’s miserly approach to funding old-age pensions. He substantially increased them while in office. But it was Pearson who negotiated, masterfully, the Canada Pension Plan, by using all his skills as a Nobel Prize-winning diplomat to bring the premiers onside. Working out the equalization system, reforming the Bank of Canada, supporting the emerging nations of the developing world – Pearson essentially invented foreign aid, while Nelson Mandela in an address to the House of Commons in 1990thanked John Diefenbaker for being one of the first international leaders to oppose the apartheid regime in South Africa – the list goes on. Despite these achievements, by the centennial in 1967 the squabbling, bickering, scandal-mongering fights between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives had most Canadians wishing both leaders would leave the stage, and they did – Pearson of his own accord, Diefenbaker kicking and screaming. What the public didn’t notice was that Canada had been transformed over the past decade through universal public health care, government-funded education, welfare supports, public pensions, open immigration. The Diefenbaker and Pearson governments had delivered the Canada we live in today. The video shows Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre approaching a house in the Ontario riding of Durham. A woman at the door berates Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whom she believes is bringing the country down. “His dad started it a long time ago,” she complains. “Well, they’re both Marxists,” Mr. Poilievre replies. The breakdown in social solidarity was already under way when Diefenbaker and Pearson were still prime ministers. The decline of deference began in the intergenerational warfare between the boomers and their parents. Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll was the fun part – even I wore my hair long and played music my father found appalling. For American youth, the fight against Jim Crow and the Vietnam War made things serious. In Canada, Quebec’s Quiet Revolution was well under way. Conservatives counter-reacted, making Ronald Reagan U.S. president in 1980. Things escalated and deteriorated: the fight over Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, the invasion of Iraq, Sarah Palin, Obamacare, the rise of social media, Donald Trump, Jan. 6. American society has become so polarized that, on the right, many appear to have given up on the institutions of government and even democracy itself. The far left has substituted identity warfare for class warfare. Some of their screeds are almost as alienating as those of the ultra-conservatives. The United States is broken, and much of Europe is not far behind. From the 1960s till recently, Canada had managed to escape the worst of this social corrosion. Declining deference isn’t a bad thing: It opens closed doors and forces elites to justify or lose their privilege. People who were silenced – women, Indigenous people, racial and sexual minorities – have found their voices and made them heard. As a result, Canada is a more open, tolerant, diverse society than it was back in the DiefenPearson years. But bit by bit, civility in this country is deteriorating, standards are lowering, exaggerations devolve into lies. The Liberals started it, maintaining in the 2004 election that the federal Conservatives had a hidden agenda to ban abortion and privatize health care, canards they have repeated in every election since. Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper sought to humiliate his opponents rather than just criticize their policies. Justin Trudeau was every bit as tough on Conservative leaders Andrew Scheer andErin O’Toole. But Pierre Poilievre is a different kettle of fish. His is a kettle of piranhas. The Conservative Leader consorted with the anti-vaccine protesters who took the national capital hostage in 2022. He plays footsies with the paranoids who accuse the World Economic Forum of trying to convert Canada into a woke, authoritarian, corporate, socialist dictatorship, or something like that. He calls Justin Trudeau a Marxist, which he knows is not true. The Trudeau government is, however, tired. Inflation, interest rates, housing prices, uncontrolled immigration flows – the Liberals seem neither to understand what is happening nor able to do anything about it. And who knows, maybe some younger voters who despair over ever being able to own their own home or even to afford a decent apartment are listening to some of what Mr. Poilievre is saying on the fringes. Maybe that’s part of the reason some pollshave the Liberals in third place among younger voters. We know polarization has arrived in Canada: The rigs that clogged Ottawa and blocked border crossings in the midst of the pandemic proved it. Those protests revealed that a significant minority of Canadians believe mask and vaccine mandates were government tools that sought to strip them of their God-given freedoms, and that only through civil disobedience could they make their voices heard. If it hadn’t been masks and vaccines, it would have been something else. Justin Trudeau did nothing to lower the temperature when he said the protesters “don’t believe in science or progress and are very often misogynistic and racist.” It’s as though both mainstream parties find it politically convenient to demonize the other side, mindless of the cost of an eroding consensus. A recent Public Policy Forum report on political polarization in Canada found, through a poll, that 68 per cent of Canadians feared “growing political and ideological polarization” as a concern, while 59 per cent worried about an “acute decline in our democratic institutions” and 57 per cent expected “a dark and diminished economy for the next generation of Canadians.” “Faith in our democratic system is weaker than we may think,” and points to “a deeper frustration with the state of the country,” the report concluded. “At the centre of that problem is polarization.” Mr. Poilievre is beginning to offer policy alternatives to the Liberals: fast-tracking foreign accreditation through a federal “blue seal” program, making federal grants to municipalities conditional on loosening restrictions on development. But when Mr. Poilievre tells folk at the door that the Prime Minister is a Marxist and consorts with anti-vaxxers or derides the legacy media, he stokes fires of distrust in the very institutions he seeks to lead. Canada has had any number of populist political leaders and movements: the United Farmers, Bible Bill Aberhart, Tommy Douglas, Preston Manning. But John Diefenbaker has been Canada’s only populist prime minister. Pierre Poilievre would like to be the second. There is a world of difference, however, between the populism of Diefenbaker and the populism of Mr. Poilievre. As a boy, John Diefenbaker helped his father break the Prairie sod of their homestead. He absorbed the complaints of farmers who suffered at the hands of grain merchants. He burned with resentment at the people who looked down on him and made fun of his German name. He translated that resentment into a career as a lawyer who represented the most vulnerable. He sat in a jail cell with an impoverished woman who explained, sobbing, why she had hidden her baby’s birth and then tried to hide its death by burying it. He listened as a wife explained why she had shot her abusive husband. He fought to save a young man with the assessed mental capacity of a child from the gallows. He represented First Nations and Métis clients. He never charged those in need. “One never had to worry about who was looking after the interests of the powerful; they had minions without number,” he wrote. “The individual, uncertain of his rights, with limited means, too often frightened by the pomp and panoply of the courtroom, required not only every advantage that counsel could obtain for him but, most of all, the belief that justice would be done him.” He never lost his faith in “the little guy,” as Ontario Premier Doug Ford calls them, and the little guy never lost faith in him. As the train bore his casket from Ottawa back to Saskatoon, people gathered along the route to say farewell. “Workmen holding hard hats in their hands as the train went by,” The Globe and Mail’s Joan Hollobon wrote. “Old men standing at attention. Women waving. Young people.” And 10,000 who waited past midnight in Winnipeg. Mr. Poilievre, who was elected to Parliament at the age of 25 and who has been there ever since, wants to reach the modern equivalent of these people. He promises to push past and push aside the “gatekeepers” who keep ordinary people down. But the Chief never sought to tear down, only to build up. On his watch, First Nations became eligible to vote in federal elections, his government helped farmers sell their grain abroad, he arranged work for the unemployed through government jobs programs. And he protected every citizen from the abuse of arbitrary power through the Canadian Bill of Rights, his greatest achievement. “I am a Canadian,” he declared in the House of Commons as he introduced the bill. “A free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” If Pierre Poilievre does become Canada’s second populist prime minister, he will have much to live up to. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-diefenbaker-and-pearson-gave-us-the-canada-that-polarization-could/

Nobody is telling you or conservatives to stay silent. Most Canadian conservatives support Ukraine and continued military aid and undoubtedly would be doing the same as JT is doing. Espionage given the immense pressure from USA and Europe to continue aid. They’re just criticizing from the sidelines because they can Honestly nobody is more divisive than the name-calling, acid-tongued Pollievre who cannot pass within 25 feet of a camera or microphone without attacking and insulting his opponents and blaming them for the weather. There is nothing he won’t politicize.

Also useless fathers, who don’t lift a finger around the house, leaving all the housework and parenting to the mother. There’s more to being a father than simply bringing home a paycheque, playing the role of the scary disciplinarian, and occasionally playing catch in the backyard when it suits their mood. For every family I’ve known with an absent father I’ve known several with useless fathers who are simply uninvolved in their kids’ lives and leave everything up to the mother.

BUT HER EMAILS

Even in his worst senior moments, Biden is a “stable genius” compared to the unhinged and petulant simpleton Trump that you worship.

Having a civil war is not an indicator of success. Besides I was mostly referring to America’s present-day problems USA was designed for an 18th century agricultural society by a small group of wealthy elite old white men, many of whom were slave owners. It is completely dysfunctional in the 21st century. Also the constitution is not respected, it is just another thing for politicians and their invisible masters to game through their corrupt puppets like Clarence Thomas.

Huh? That doesn’t even make sense. BTW China is also on Putins side so the half the Republican Party and a decent chunk of Canadian conservatives are pro-China and pro-North Korea and are simply too dumb to know it.

Trudeau is not dividing Canadians on this issue. The conservative knee-jerk opposition and demonization of anything remotely related to Trudeau is divisive. Remember PP is the giy who is currently trying to frame fixing the dilapidated rodent-infested 24 Sussex as “millions for Justin Trudeau’s mansion”. Now THAT’S divisive! We can and should do everything we can to oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine while also ending boil water advisories on reserves, addressing poverty and the like. Conservatives are also always trying to demonize and defund government, but despite their rhetoric government can do more than one thing at a time

*BREAKING NEWS* Mass casualty event caused by monkey who was given fully loaded machine gun “Don’t blame me I only gave him the gun, I never told him to shoot nobody,” says zookeeper.