I am Groot

It wasn't the gun law itself but his inability to defend his position and then his flipflop. The media lovingly dwelled on how great an example that was of him blowing in the wind and having no set beliefs. https://globalnews.ca/video/7576461/coronavirus-trudeau-opposes-vaccine-passports-in-canada-says-it-would-have-divisive-impacts

I said the gun reversal was one flipflop too many and O'Toole came out looking weak and indecisive. Nobody knew what, if anything he stood for. HE collapsed indecisively about the vaccination mandate too, unable to state a coherent case for his policy beliefs. Which Trudeau had shared up until he saw himself falling behind in early polls after he'd called the election btw. Prior to that he'd dismissed mandates as too divisive. When he saw the polls he decided he'd be as divisive as he needed if it got him re-elected.

The Left certainly does but it will rarely mock the high priests of climate change. Be they scientists or not.

O'Toole didn't lose because of 'goof rhetoric' or conspiracy theories. He was sailing high until Trudeau hit him with the mean looking gun ban list and accused him of wanting to let everyone have an assault weapon. And O'Toole then babbled while drooling down the front of his suit and the next day repudiated his own party for daring to suggest the mean looking gun ban was dumb. It was one sign of weakness and one flip-flop too many. His fortunes turned around on that issue.

AFAIK conservatives only mock Gore. He doesn't (obviously) convince us of anything. I don't think you can say the same of many on the left.

... at the earliest.

It is a cost comparison. Over $5 billion to build each ship. Which is less than the Brits spent building their aircraft carriers.

I highly doubt anyone is going to be much upset by this other than those who wouldn't dream of voting for Ford anyway. Let the chattering classes chatter if they so desire but keep the kids in school.

Don't worry. We will run a small deficit of $10 billion next year and then quickly return to balance by the next election as the budget balances itself.

Yes. Talking about ship classes from days gone by ignores that in days gone by warships' main armament were guns, and the bigger the ship the bigger the gun and the longer its range A bigger ship could start firing on a smaller one before the smaller one even got into range. None of this is true today. I might also add the Type 26 frigates are bigger and heavier, and have a longer range than the Tribal class destroyers, which were the last ones Canada had before their decommissioning.

I don't think the anti-ship or anti-aircraft missiles fired from frigates today are any less destructive than those fired from destroyers or cruisers.

Oh you poor sweet summer child. Never ask the courts to decide anything. Especially if it involves natives.

They didn't own it. Any more than the bears or birds. Why would the natives have any sort of legal claim to land in a place that had no laws nor written language? Why? Every other nation on Earth did it. Certainly the natives didn't bother to extract some sort of legal agreement from each other when they attacked and took land.

Because corruption. As you point out there just is no other reason why we're paying more for our base model Chevy Spark than we'd pay for a Porsche. It nod only robs Canadians but it robs us of a properly kitted out military. How can we afford new equipment when everything we pay for is two, three, four times what even our allies are paying, never mind what Russia or China is paying. How many frigates do you think China could build for $5 billion? Wait! Google! Yeah! That's a thing. So China is building new destroyers - which are much bigger and more capable than frigates. The Type 055 is between 12,000-13,000 tons. Canada's new frigates will be about 6900 (9400 fully loaded). China's destroyers are costing it about $400 million. So for those who compare militaries based on spending this is one of the reasons why that doesn't work. China can build ten of these big destroyers for the same cost as we'll fork out for one frigate. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-largest-destroyer-most-powerful-055-lhasa-renhai-nanchang-zumwalt-2022-6#chinese-media-has-touted-the-ship-as-the-second-most-powerful-destroyer-in-the-world-after-the-uss-zumwalt-2

What replaced them would be most unlikely to look upon the US favorably. It couldn't if it hoped to get elected or re-elected because such an action from the US would turn the Canadian population against the US. Too much of that and we'll be diverting all our natural resources to China instead of the US and signing free trade deals with them.

Royalties have an end date.

I cannot imagine how they think Irving shipbuilding would be able to sell naval vessels to anyone who had a choice as to who built their ships. There is no way they're ever going to compete with France, Italy, the UK, Norway, South Korea or just about anywhere else on either price or quality.

Oh right. How?

They're selling their F35s everywhere. They even sold them to Turkey. Although they've since changed their minds given how cozy the Turks were getting with Putin.

Are you under the impression I wrote the article or the PBO report its based on you putz?

We are NOT going to use it for 65 years. That's just complete bullshit. It would be like operating a destroyer from WW2 right up until 2010.

And ours are over $5 billion just for the ships. Please explain.

Probably not. But the $85 billion cost of the frigates doesn't include any of that either. And what about those American frigates at half the price?