BeaverFever

How so? Trump is fundamentally AGAINST free trade. He has a minimum 10% tariff against ALL countries including those that the US already has a trade surplus with. His whole “past presidents have allowed countries to take advantage of us for generations” lie is directly uAGAINST Reagan’s free trade policies. He has tariffs against countries that he already has feee trade agreements with including Canada. And most importantly nowhere does Ronald Reagan list “some from another country taking out a tv ad I don’t like” as reason not to have free trade with that country Seriously give your brainwashed head a shake.

The thing is Trump was always going to pull some crazy shit like this. When someone is that unstable and irrational you can’t blame anyone else. If you’ve ever dated a “crazy chick” you can relate. After they have some kind of freak out meltdown you at first think to yourself if only you hadn’t said x or done y the whole thing wouldn’t have happened but you quickly realize with crazy people these things are inevitable they will always find an excuse to freak out, you just have to cut your losses and distance yourself from them, and most importantly not blame yourself for their crazy behaviour.

Nobody expects Canada to be able to defeat Russia singlehandedly, that’s not realistic. Dogsleds and drones can be captured and defeated bloodlessly. All Canada needs beyond security and surveillance is a tripwire force of sufficient strength that it can only be defeated by being killed in an unmistakable act of war, not just in a skirmish or “incident” but a planned and deliberate attack. As for occupation, look how USA struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq and at least there they had “war on terror” excuse and the fact that the conflict was far from US shores to keep the American public on their side. Canada is something like 26x the size of Iraq, the US military doesn’t have the force size to control that much territory and the border and they are not going to surrender the world to Russia and China by withdrawing forces from every theatre in the world to occupy Canada. And while some right wing Americans will undoubtedly believe whatever lie the White House tells them I don’t think many Americans would support invading Canada or having insurgents in their communities. America has enough firearms in circulation that plenty will be available on the black market to meet the demand. But as I said we live in the age of the drone and the IED.

I have not told any lies, that’s just a one the many false accusations you rely on when you have no facts. And yet he’s ranting about a former prime minister and making spurious accusations about alleged controversies from several elections ago that Canadians don’t care about and don’t believe. Carney still has high approval ratings especially for handling the Tariffs so far. As I already pointed out, cancelling the counter-tariffs has boosted the Canadian economy. Why would he keep them if they aren’t getting results in Washington while also hurting the Canadian economy? Only a conservative would be that stupid as to keep doing things that clearly are no longer working. That’s not the base, that’s just how many decided to vote for him last time, some of them are swing voters and if he’s only going to appeal to the base while turning everyone else off he’s just going to lose more. Every day that Trudeau is gone, PP is that much more irrelevant. He better hope Doug Ford stays Premier for a long time because once that’s over he might be the new contender for PP’s job. Apparently DoFo is the most popular conservative in the country right now and PP’s team of toxic personalities decided to make enemies out of Ford’s team (they also unnecessarily made enemies with Houston’s team in Nova Scotia).

Because the Northern Gateway proposal was already well advanced by the time fracking had disrupted the market and Enbridge already had hundreds of millions in sunk costs on the project and had cleared some of the regulatory hurdles. Northern Gateway was conceived in the early 2000s and filed for regulatory approval in 2010, well before fracking was a thing. So naturally in those first few years Enbridge was less willing to cut and run at first and more willing to try and see it through in the hope of longshot viability or break even by selling what they can to China. But that’s a chapter that’s been closed for nearly a decade now And should we really be selling more energy to China and becoming more economically dependent on them? You know they’re not the good guys right? Look what they’re doing to our Canola right now.

Security and sovereignty are different than war fighting. Canada could never win a war against Russia singlehandedly so it would be pointless to make that the goal of our arctic strategy. But we are not alone against Russia we are part of a military alliance and Russia is not going to attack and kill NATO forces on their own soil. So they are not going to attack a Canadian AOPS patrolling the arctic even if they have the capability to do so easily. Security and sovereignty is about detecting activity and having a deterrent presence. If we don’t have any assets there at all then the Russians are free to go wherever they want and then the onus is on us to dislodge them by force, which USA might not back us on. The Russians would not go as far as to shoot their way past even a lightly armed Canadian security force, they could however waltz in on unguarded territory and then just say “we’re here now, what are you going to do about it?” The invasion would be over instantly. The OCCUPATION would be impossible. Canada is like 23 times the size of Iraq and there’s no way the US military could occupy it entirely OR secure the world’s longest binational border which means US military would have to secure the entire North American continent from Alaska to Florida. The resistance won’t need rifles as much in the age of the deadly homemade drone and IED but there are plenty of firearms to be obtained in USA. And that’s assuming that foreign powers aren’t smuggling aid to us. As for cyberattacks and otherwise destroying Canada, Canada has its own cybersecurity and Canadians have their own computer geeks able to hack back. Cyber is actually the great equalizer because capabilities are much more equal between countries. Furthermore USA would want to keep Canada’s economy intact not destroy it. It wouldn’t help them to share the world’s longest border with a ruined failed state. Their goal for annexing Canada would be to add a shiny jewel to their crown not to smash the jewel into shit and devalue the crown they already have

AFTER the bottom fell out of the oilsands market. Nope, I know you conservatives have the memory of a goldfish so let me repost an article I shared back in February Why Canada’s Oil Sands Aren’t Coming Back I used to be an oil executive. Here’s how market forces, not politics, killed the oil boom—and why new pipelines won’t save the country. Ross Belot is an energy and climate change columnist who worked for Imperial Oil before retiring in 2014. https://macleans.ca/economy/why-canadas-oil-sands-arent-coming-back/ But I know you don’t read either so I’ll limit my hope that you’ll suddenly be able to put reason above emotion.

Private sector hasn’t been interested in an oilsands pipeline in over a decade. There has been ZERO interest from industry, since then, none. Oilsands crude is prohibitively expensive to refine and transport EXCEPT during brief periods of extraordinarily high prices from temporary oil shortages, which was eliminated for the foreseeable future by the advent of fracking around 10 years ago. And the carbon capture requirement isn’t a new revelation he’s been speaking about it for a while, it was one of the big “nation building” projects recently announced.

Yeah this is all just pretend talk we all know nobody is realistically ever going to invade Canada. If USA were to annex Canada it would be an inside job, prime minister Kevin O’Leary signing a treaty, something like that But if an invasion were to happen it would only happen from the south. Russia could theoretically nibble uninhabited islands in the arctic but the mainland is not threatened. Our arctic challenge is sovereignty and security not combat. But in the highly unlikely US invasion scenario I do believe there would be an armed resistance operating on both sides of the border which would have many US supporters and USA would not be able to adequately contain it given the vast geography involved

What don’t you understand? I am saying he is still acting like he’s running in an election against Justin Trudeau. So really you’re the one saying the stupid thing. Also he has a leadership review coming up so one could argue he’s running against himself to keep his job. It’s also a minority government which historically only lasts about 18 months or so, so he SHOULD be still trying to position himself to the electorate. You can’t get elected PM by playing to the conservative base which is only about a third of voters. Especially with conspiracy theories and trying to rehash old controversies from the previous decade that the voters YOU NEED have long ago put behind them in multiple elections.

It’s not barrel scraping when it’s headline news. PP is sagging in his own party. Who said it was a non-biased and impartial source? It’s a sign of growing dissatisfaction in PP’s own party. A growing number of conservative factions are saying they are unhappy with his leadership and style

Cool thing is, we already have armouries in communities all over Canada, that’s where our reservists already serve. We should be boosting our reserves anyway, as a cost- effective way to grow our force size and to respond to the increasing number of natural disasters across the country. It’s a totally reasonable and non-provocative thing to do. Couple that with heavy rotation of these reservists through NATO’s eastern front training for “Total Defence” and asymmetrical warfare against a vastly larger adversary would be pretty useful.

Except that PP is the opposition leader in 2025 not 2017 or 2019 when these issues were relevant. The fact that he’s still running against Justin Trudeau scandals from 8 years and several elections ago when he wasn’t even the opposition leader shows how desperate he is. Which is why he’s still the opposition leader and not the PM

Are you talking to me or the Conservative who wrote the article? What you’re missing is that PP wasn’t the opposition leader and Carney wasn’t PM when these scandals came to light YEARS AGO. There have been MULTIPLE ELECTIONS since these issues came to light. It’s the business of the opposition to oppose the current government, not some past government from years ago when someone else was opposition leader and someone else was PM Canadian voters have long ago moved past these issues 2 or 3 elections ago. The fact that PP is fixating on these past issues and also now is introducing new conspiracy theories attacking the RCMP shows he’s oblivious to the fact that he lost his “guaranteed win” in the last election for trying to run against Justin Trudeau and for catering to the far right base, which most Canadians have no interest in. “Barrel I scraped”? “Liberal tears?” This was a a major op-ed that has been headline news this week. How clueless are you?

That’s why they only train for arctic warfare not arctic sovereignty and security. Basically they’re training to defend Norway. Canada’s arctic mandate at least for now is sovereignty and security of the Canadian arctic which is a different mission. CSOR does so we at least have a small nugget of excellence. I was thinking the way around this problem without the politically problematic issue of training the CAF to fight the USA would be to modify our NATO mission in Latvia/Eastern Europe to train for “defence in depth” of “total defence” warfare against a Russian invasion of Europe. The Scandinavian and Baltic states already employ these principles, which accept that they can’t realistically hold off a Russian invasion along a static front but instead will have to fight and operate in and amongst Russian forces with no real “front line”. I think of it like a cheese grater, which doesn’t stop the cheese from passing through it, but instead just shreds the cheese into more manageable pieces as it passes through. It’s not really “insurgency” or guerrilla warfare but more like dispersed operations with conventional forces but I think it’s something to work with. I think we might have just seen an example with Canadian CF-18s practicing operations from Estonian highways in a recent exercise this past week. Anyway it would be cool if the Canadian Army made practicing this type of defence and insurgency/guerrilla warfare in Europe an official part of its doctrine and purpose - you know, to help resist a “Russian” invasion of “Europe“ (making big air quotes) - for the true purpose of defending Canada from USA. It could be especially effective if we made sure to get lots of Reservists rotated through that training so they could bring that knowledge back to their local reserve regiments in communities across the country.

I’m just saying you can’t limit it to political assassinations, the war has to majorly destroy the daily quality of life of average citizens

So you admit they’re not committing terrorism and it’s not a “war zone” requiring the national guard then. Right? RIIIIIGHT?

What? But before you were trying to say Trump prefers Liberals to conservatives because the Liberals do what they’re told. Funny how you just reinvent the narrative. Trump respects Carney and so does his senior cabinet. Carney has an impeccable international reputation with political and business leaders around the world. Trump is also easily charmed and Carney can allegedly be quite charming and funny when he wants to be. He never said he’s easier to deal with than PP. There you go again with lies. And he acknowledged that Carney was elected as an Anti-Trump candidate as a backlash to Trump’s policies. Don’t pull your usual BS and try to say Trump endorsed Carney as a pro-Trump candidate and that’s why Canadians chose him. I can’t find any evidence of whether that’s true or not, if you have a link post it. But you’ll recall when Carney recognized the state of Palestine Trump was very angry and threatened Canada so first of all there goes your theory about Carney being Trump’s obedient puppet and second of all that would explain why Trump wouldn’t proactively invite Canada (if your claim is even true)….not that Canada is a significant player in Israel-Palestine anyway. No not everything. He recognized Palestine which made Trump mad, he’s kept the strategic sector counter-tariffs which Trump doesn’t like, he’s kept dairy supply management which Trump doesn’t like. Not all of them, and you’ll notice that the latest economic data shows that doing so actually improved the Canadian economy and economic outlook And I quote, from the right-wing financial post no less: “The federal government’s removal of retaliatory tariffs on many U.S. goods will provide another lift to the economy. Desjardins estimates that GDP could be as much as 0.2 per cent higher due to lower inflation and lower interest rates. The central provinces, whose manufacturing industries are dependent on U.S. trade, will benefit most from this. Because construction was one of the sectors hit hardest by retaliatory tariffs, relief will be a boon to Ontario and British Columbia, where residential building is a big part of the economy. The removal of the counter tariffs will also lighten inflation, leading Desjardins to cut its forecast for 2026 from 2.1 per cent to 1.7 per cent. As these pressures ease, the economists expect the Bank of Canada to cut its interest rate in October and then once more before pausing.” https://financialpost.com/news/outlook-canada-provinces-shifts-losers-might-surprise-you False. Ford did that on his own when he got an invite to the White House. He was probably bluffing to begin with, Ontario had already been investing billions in power generating capacity specifically to export more electricity to USA he’s not likely going to jeopardize the contracts he has with US states and utilities. Most of the border changes were made as a Trudeau olive branch but needed anyway to curb new border threats created BY Trump, ie illegal immigration OUT of USA into Canada. And much of it was just symbolic gesture “border security theatre” as one prominent critic called it. Sort-of. USA wants us buying American not joining European defence production pacts. And if we’re going to decouple from USA and start treating them like a threat to our sovereignty we of course need our own capable military. No, not moments after. No, not every voice. And it’s easy for people who aren’t at the table to play armchair quarterback. The Daily Fail is a right-wing tabloid filled with the kind of yellow journalism your type loves. But literally nobody in the sane world had that impression of that summit.

You would just be giving Americans their 9/11 moment and make those Republicans into Martyrs and the American people would rally around the flag and give the government permission to use any and all force like they did after 9/11. Americans in the heartland and small towns have to understand that there will be armed resistance in their communities so long as USA continues to occupy Canada and that all US transportation and economic infrastructure, and all US military assets are fair targets.

You wouldn’t need JTF2. Any person willing to pull a trigger or fly a drone on behalf of the Canadian resistance would be able to slip across the border go anywhere in the US. If even 1% of the Canadian population chose to take up arms and resist that would be a larger insurgent force than the US faced in either Iraq or Afghanistan and they’d have free run of the continent, probably thousands or tens of thousands of Americans would join us as well. Maybe more. Forget about assassinating politicians we could be destroying bridges and rail hubs, flying homemade drone swarms into US military bases, wiping out whole squadrons of parked aircraft, causing all kinds of civil and economic chaos.

Bylaws are different that’s municipal government. But AFAIK these PRIVATE groups with the power to force you out of a home you OWN for breaking their rules (especially over things like failing to put up or take down xmas lights) don’t exist in Canada.

As I said every department has its own budget and mandate and governments have to deal with dozens of priorities not just divert all their funding to one or 2 top priorities and ignore everything else. Also note that is funding allocated under a previous budget that precedes the trade war. Carney’s first budget will he released on November 4.

As Americans are learning the hard way, that “foreign aid” mostly involves government buying agricultural products and manufactured goods from its own domestic producers. It’s as much a subsidy program as it is anything else. The USAID office that Trump shutdown was one of the biggest purchasers of American agricultural products Between that, the trade wars, cancelling a shitload of other farm subsidies and running off immigrant farm workers, many American farms are on the brink of collapse thanks to Trump.

Department of Global affairs has its own mandate and its own budget. Each government department has its own job to do and this department l’s responsibilities don’t include supporting domestic farmers.

When a Harper Conservative goes after Pierre Poilievre, you know there’s blood in the water Oct. 17, 2025 at 8:40 p.m. By Althia RajNational Columnist Althia Raj is a national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj The uprising against Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre may have officially begun. Just three months before Poilievre’s leadership review in Calgary, Stephen Harper’s former spokesman is letting it be known that knives should be out. Writing in the Star, Dimitri Soudas accuses Poilievre of “dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity.” Soudas, who served as the former prime minister’s communications director, suggests Poilievre is rewriting the legacy of the party, and he reminds the public — and Conservatives — that theirs is a party that is “far greater than any one man,” that was “built to serve the country, not the ego of a single leader.” The Conservative establishment, it appears, won’t remain silent as Poilievre tries to remake the party into a grievance movement — as Republicans were when Donald Trump turned theirs into an outlet for racist, corrupt and conspiracy-fueled authoritarianism. Soudas’s column is the first public sign that those around Harper, long heralded as the guardian of the party, may be unhappy with the performance of Poilievre, his former parliamentary secretary. During the election campaign, there were multiple reports of frustrations behind the scenes from Harper’s camp, despite his public endorsement of the current Conservative leader. In a statement Friday, Harper’s team tried to disassociate itself from Soudas’ comments, saying his words did “not reflect Prime Minister Harper’s views. “Mr. Soudas does not speak on behalf of Mr. Harper,” Anna Tomala, the chief of staff of Harper & Associates told the Star. But privately, many big Conservative names — the party’s elite, if you wish — are disappointed and discouraged by Poilievre’s antics. They muted their complaints when Poilievre was rising in the polls and it seemed certain he would become prime minister; now that he’s not, the rumblings are getting louder. Inside the Conservative caucus, there are also many unhappy members. The more Prime Minister Mark Carney talks about pipelines and crime and rewrites the Justin Trudeau-era legacy, the more these Conservatives are reminded that they may be backing the wrong leader. It’s not just those who see themselves as progressive conservatives — there are also pragmatic conservatives, fiscal conservatives, rural conservatives, Quebec conservatives, Eastern conservative, Western conservatives, and just not-crazy conservatives. For nearly 10 years, these MPs looked across the aisle and thought Trudeau lacked the maturity to do the job. Now they are asked to defend a leader who muses that his former opponent should be jailed, who calls the RCMP leadership “despicable,” who wants to “restore merit” by ending diversity, equity and inclusion policies — despite his own track record of appointing Conservative candidates who could not win nomination races, and displacing an elected MP after losing his own seat last spring. Much as the 2015 election campaign left many New Democrats dispirited after Trudeau gave voice to their issues and ideals better than NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, many Conservatives aren’t upset that they lost. They are upset about how they lost. They feel they didn’t run on their principle. They feel they are represented by a leader that does not represent their values. What are they willing to do about it? Some caucus members were approached by Liberal emissaries this spring about crossing the floor, but ultimately felt they couldn’t make that switch. Intellectually, emotionally, they were not Liberals. Some represent ridings that would be hard to win as a Grit. But six months later, those calculations may have changed, especially for Quebec MPs and those in Eastern Canada. Poilievre is going down a darker path. Can they win their riding in spite of him as leader? Defection to the Liberals, however, is not the only option. Much like Chuck Strahl once led a group of Canadian Alliance MPs who were disenchanted with Stockwell Day’s leadership to sit in the House of Commons as their own parliamentary grouping, these Conservatives could form their own caucus. That would signal disappointment with Poilievre, and could spur more of an effort to defeat him in Calgary next January. A new leader would no doubt welcome those dissenters back into the Conservative fold. But most Conservative MPs feel Poilievre’s leadership review — his confirmation — is all but sealed and delivered. Some delegates have yet to be selected, but the location choice of Calgary, the simultaneous Ontario Progressive Conservative convention, and the makeup of the current membership seem like insurmountable obstacles to those who oppose his leadership. And unlike the revolt that led to Erin O’Toole’s removal as Conservative party leader after the disappointing 2021 election campaign, Poilievre has no leadership rival actively organizing against him the way he organized against O’Toole. It’s mainly why the movement to push Poilievre out the door has so far had few legs. No one wants to stick their necks out for fear of having Poilievre refuse to sign their nomination papers, essentially ending their political careers. And everyone, in and out of the Conservative caucus, knows Poilievre won’t go without a fight. Would he even contest the leadership of the party again if he lost the leadership review? If Conservative MPs were waiting for a white knight before showing some resolve, that person hasn’t materialized. Leadership options may not present themselves until Poilievre is out the door and with him the MAGA rhetoric that he is espousing. What they and grassroots Conservatives have been given by Soudas now, though, is a push for moral clarity. They may not have the numbers yet to defeat Poilievre in January, but there is now a suggestion that many more feel like they do, and that if they don’t act, the legacy of their party will be reshaped in a manner they find unrecognizable. https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/when-a-harper-conservative-goes-after-pierre-poilievre-you-know-theres-blood-in-the-water/article_927fbc57-9b7f-4c0a-a638-1fc504ca0204.html