I am Groot

Is it? Down south it is social conservatism which is drawing people to the Republicans, because people see the Democrats as abandoning basic morals and values in favor of identity politics and woke nonsense like gender fluidity and teaching little kids that white people are oppressors and everyone else a victim. More Blacks and Hispanics are turning to the Republicans in search of decent schools and safe streets. I think the only thing which is supporting the Liberals here is largely supine media and sky-high immigration. They are importing new Liberal supporters much as Mulroney did in the 1980s. And the ones who are here want to see more of their friends and relatives coming in. Trudeau presents to them as a happy fool who will pay for all kinds of parties and festivals and ethic community halls and the like. But eventually those immigrants who have established themselves and start to care more about the shape of the country vs bringing over their relatives and friends are going to turn on him. At least, those who intend to stay. A lot of them are here to make money and use it to set themselves up back 'home'. We saw that in the last Lebanese mess, where we suddenly had to extricate tens of thousands of 'Canadians of convenience' who had gone 'home' to live. Of course, it helps that they haven't been presented with a strong, confident conservative voice since Harper. And even he was far too much the compromiser and had too few communication skills to really present the case for conservatism. Because it's a lot more difficult to make a complicated explanation for why people are better off in the long run with more conservative fiscal policy over a ten second sound byte (if you're lucky to get that long) than it is to just send people cheques. How much money is the government sending out now to individuals everywhere, becoming everyone's generous daddy? That's easy to see when you paid, and easy to see that if you want that to continue you better keep on voting for the happy, spendthrift fool. But eventually we're going to run out of money and it's going to become obvious to everyone that this path he's paved is going over a financial cliff.

By all accounts? Does 'all' mean something different in French than it does English? Are you confused?

Diefenbaker could read and write. And was an excellent speaker. Trump doesn't like to read and certainty doesn't write. And his speeches are often incomprehensible rants against presumed enemies. Diefenbaker cared about ordinary people. Trump cares only about Trump. Diefenbaker had a passion for freedom and human rights and brought in the Bill of Rights, championed giving natives the vote, and opposed South Africa. Trump only likes freedom for Trump, and would just as soon end democracy so he could be dictator for life. Diefenbaker was an honest man. Trump has been a corrupt, conniving snake his entire life. Diefenbaker also had a vision, something Don boy lacks.

What you seem to lack is any sense of realpolitik. There are things we can do without hurting ourselves - much and there are things we can't. I am not for harming ourselves over what will mostly be nothing more than a symbolic act. Distancing ourselves from China would hurt more but China is an existential threat to our freedom and democracy. It also cheats at trade and any other agreements it makes. The more trade you have with them the more opportunity they have to blackmail you. And they will use it at every opportunity shamelessly, brazenly not caring who knows it.

You'd lose that bet. I've long been an advocate for distancing ourselves from China and against their attempts to control western media, academics and politicians. There's no such thing as a woke right wing. We're too sensible to be woke.

This isn't from Canada, but it demonstrates the weakness of the West in dealing with autocratic governments like China. The weakness is called 'greed' and China influences western countries not just through buying off their political leadership but by buying off their corporate leaders, as well. These, in turn, do their best to influence political leaders in the direction China wants. The example of today is Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York city and former presidential primary candidate. The other day he made a public apology at a business conference the Bloomberg group sponsored because UK ex-PM Boris Johnson said bad things about China. Bloomberg is one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, with an estimated net worth of over $75 billion. But terror of giving offense to China still robs him of anything resembling a spine or any shadow of morality. "Some may have been insulted or offended last night by parts of the speaker’s remarks referencing certain countries and their duly elected leaders," Bloomberg said in remarks posted on Twitter. Referring to Johnson, Bloomberg said: "Those were his thoughts and his thoughts alone, not cleared in advance by anyone or shared with me personally... To those of you who were upset and concerned by what the speaker said, you have my apologies." Imagine apologizing to the 'duly elected' leaders of China! And to think this guy ran for president. It just goes to show that it doesn't matter how much money you have. You can still be captive to special interests and still be greedy beyond measure. And if Bloomberg can be bought and paid for imagine how responsive the corporate honchos and political operators in Canada are! There is a quote variously attributed to Marx, Lenin and Stalin that sums up men like Bloomberg: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them." https://www.reuters.com/world/michael-bloomberg-apologises-boris-johnson-speech-criticising-china-2022-11-20/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

I suspect most of the women in the military are more like Margaret Thatcher than Margaret Trudeau. They'd be quite capable of starting wars too.

They can't. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/women-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer-flna878323

Nowadays they call you a white supremacist if you demonstrate any love or pride in country.

When it threatened them, yes. But you might take a small glance at how the US treated the third world countries in this era, particularly those in Latin America. And I seem to recall Trudeau the elder's favorite guy was Fidel Castro. During the cold war it was all about the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Stated principles are nice, but not as effective as tanks, fighters, missiles, and a first class military.

Compared to what? Compared to how many natives died on their reserves? Have you ever seen such a comparison?

Our grandparents sacrificed to safeguard themselves. I mean, not to demean them in any way but they don't fight the Germans just because it was the moral thing to do.

If necessary, yes. Taxes ARE too high for what we get. Witness how much we spent on healthcare vs the quality of that healthcare as measured against other western countries. Climate change is not an immediate crisis and education has nothing to do with federal spending. Canadians have never been asked. Spending on the military has never been an election issue except when Liberals are in opposition and shriek about the "enormous waste" in buying things like helicopters and fighter. NOTE! Even they never say such things aren't needed. They just exaggerated the cost and then promised to start a new 'fairer' competition as soon as elected. Chretien did this with the EH101 and Trudeau did it with the F35. Both wound up buying the same things they had campaigned against only for more money due to their delays. If we are to be part of alliances then our allies have the right to expect us to contribute. In all likelihood a Republican will be in the White House in two years. And given the mentality of that party they're going to look very sourly at why Canada doesn't even try to pull its weight.

The government plays accounting games to get it up as high as it is. And it wastes enormous amounts of money by using the military capital spending budget (such as it is) to buy grossly overpriced junk from Canadian manufacturers that the military doesn't even want. An example being those arctic patrol vessels the navy never asked for nor wanted. If we ever give them new frigates the price is going to be wildly over their actual value, too. Are we to brag that we spent so much on our military buying votes out east when the UK is building the same ships for less than a third the cost?

The problem is few of the world's countries meet up with our belief in human rights. And that includes many of the democracies. Japan? India? Singapore? Mexico? Indonesia? Pakistan? Gross violations of human rights happen in these countries all the time. Never mind the actual dictatorships, which is most of the rest of the world. And most of the 'good' countries are in the EU, which has a tariff wall up around it.

I have heard no complaints or objections from the actual people of Canada on the cost of properly funding the military. And realistically this government never shown the slightest care about the cost of anything anyway. They don't fund the military simply because they believe they can better use the money to buy votes.

It's good enough for government work. The market for the likes of coal is worldwide and there is no preference given to sellers except for on price and reliability. Which is why countries have no problem buying oil and gas from the likes of Russia, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

Selling raw materials is like selling oil. There's always a market at pretty much the same price. If we don't sell it to China we'll sell it to Indonesia or India instead.

Our biggest export to China is... coal. Other major exports are copper and iron ore, wood pulp, and agricultural products.

Or refusing to hand over documents to parliamentary commissions.

Nope. The people making predictions about what the world will be like 80 years in the future are going to be just as wildly off as the ones who predicted the future in 1940. We can't know the future. I just know numbers. And by the numbers, nothing we do is going to have any influence. And the only way I'll accept joining in a community effort is if the community joins in. And it's not. China will build 100 new coal plants this year. So will the rest of Asia. I'm not sure how much CO2 100 new coal plants put out but I bet it'll more than enough to make up for everything we've done or plan to do this decade. The IEA notes that, in the decade to 2021, total installed coal-fired generation doubled. The agency called it the “fastest increase” in coal capacity since the technology was invented in the late 19th century. Rapid population growth and industrialization in the developing world can explain much of the rise.

That is based on climate alarmism so-called journalists spew out for clicks. The UN panel on climate change doesn't even suggest anything along those lines. You also fail to take into account just how adaptable mankind is to a change which will be very slow and incremental.