I am Groot

My opposition to it has always been the same. It won't work. It won't help. It won't do a goddam thing to slow global warming. All it is is virtue signaling so guys like you, or Carney or Trudeau, can lift your chin and puff out your chest and talk bravely about how you're sacrificing for the future like the true, noble, wonderful, virtuous people you are. And I don't feel like spending two trillion dollars on that. Find a cheaper way to feed your ego. Machine guns and mines at the US southern border will solve most of that.

Ah yes. The western world agreed to heavily penalize their industry in order to drive it offshore to the developing world - and agreed to pay them hundred of billions of dollars. And the developing world agreed to do nothing. Not hard to figure out why most of the world signed onto that. Harder to explain is why the West did, except for the US. I'm damned sure Canada wouldn't have if it had been a Conservative in charge.

Oh, there it is. When the climate catastrophizers finally accept they have no argument that our two trillion dollar efforts will make any difference they resort to 'Well be setting a good example!" Which can be more accurately translated as virtue signalling. That's all it is. Others have 'set a good example' far earlier than we have. Nobody cares. The UK has been 'setting a good example' for years. The cost of electricity for business there is five times greater than in the US. Elderly people are shivering in their homes for fear that turning on the power will mean they can't afford to eat. The're strangling their oil and gas industry and pouring money into rainbows and unicorns - er, windmills and solar panels. Of course, their economy is stagnant, their infrastructure is falling apart, and NOBODY in the world gives a crap about their good example. Certainly not the Chinese or the Indians. The third world doesn't have to do this 'net zero' thing for another 45 years. Why should they spend any time or money on it today? They're busy building coal plants.

People like you see the world in black and white. Someone is on your side, or they're worse than Hitler. Someone agrees with your solution to global warming or they're a 'climate denier', whatever hell that is. One can agree that the climate is warming, and even that human activity is at least to some degree responsible without agreeing the proposed solution will accomplish anything but impoverishing us. Scientists don't say 'the end'. That's only for the scaremongers and those who have been scared. In fact, Canada's environment will actually likely be more benign and easier to survive in as the temperature rises. Same for much of the northern hemisphere.

Decoupling from the US will not leave us less exposed to trade wars but more exposed.

That was predicted to happen by 2004, wasn't it?

As I recall, the UN predicted that climate change could cost Canada around 1% of GDP in 2100. Fighting climate change will cost more than that NOW. And will only grow worse as they increase the cost of energy.

It also leads the world in coal plants and carbon emissions. It pumps out more carbon than the entire developed world combined.

What has that got to do with the topic here? To a degree, you're right. And the kind of policies Carney advocates - the same ones as exist in the UK - will continue to offshore our manufacturing. Despite our electricity grid being fairly clean and theirs very dirty, we will tax the hell out of heavy industries so they move from Canada to China - or Mexico - or India. And then men like Carney will puff out their chest and street and talk about how they've done such a good job in lowering carbon eissions.

Stole this from Reddit. A guy gathered government financial stats and a few others and fed it into an AI asking it for an analysis of Liberal rule. Real GDP per person in 2023 was about the same as in 2014, indicating almost a decade of stagnant living standards. A persistent challenge has been Canada’s lagging productivity and innovation performance. Despite a generally educated workforce and stable institutions, the country struggles to turn that into strong productivity growth. Business investment in productive assets remains weak – economists note that non-residential investment and machinery spending have been low relative to GDP, particularly since the mid-2010s. As a result, Canada’s productivity growth rate was anemic over the last decade. In fact, the standard of living measured by output per person did not improve from 2014 to 2023.an almost unprecedented period of stagnation for a developed nation. This has implications for wages and public finances in the long run. Investors have sometimes been deterred by regulatory hurdles and uncertainty. For example, energy and resource projects (pipelines, mines) faced delays or cancellations amid environmental reviews and policy changes, prompting complaints that Canada is a difficult place to invest. Tech sector investors see promise in Canada’s talent, but startups often scale up or exit slowly; many Canadian innovations (from AI research to biotech) get developed domestically but commercialized abroad due to better financing or market conditions elsewhere. Canada still invests far less in R&D (about 1.9% of GDP) than the OECD country average of 2.7% Federal budget deficits surged under the Liberal government, especially after 2015, leading to a doubling of the national debt (from about $616 billion in 2015 to roughly $1.3 trillion by 2024) Over the past decade, housing affordability reached crisis levels. Home prices soared dramatically, far outpacing incomes. The average Canadian house price roughly doubled from 2015 to 2022, putting home ownership out of reach for many young families. Even after interest rate hikes cooled the market, prices in 2023 remained about 30% higher than pre-pandemic (April 2020) Governments introduced measures (a National Housing Strategy, first-time buyer incentives, and in B.C., taxes on foreign buyers and empty homes) but housing supply has not kept up with population growth. A surge in immigration and limited new construction have intensified competition for homes. Gasoline prices spiked, notably in 2022 when the average price reached $2.07/L (a 55% jump year-over-year) by June 2022. While global oil market swings were the main driver, carbon taxes (now adding about 17¢ per liter)also raised fuel costs. Overall, Canadians faced higher costs for essentials, and critics say government efforts have been insufficient to alleviate the cost-of-living crunch. After decades of decline, crime rates in Canada have been edging up in recent years. The overall Crime Severity Index began rising from its 2014 low point, with 2023 marking the third consecutive annual increase Violent crimes, including homicides, have increased (Canada’s homicide rate grew roughly 40–50% between 2014 and 2022) amid public concern about gang violence and random attacks. Critics have blamed certain policies for being “soft on crime.” For example, the Liberal government’s 2019 justice reforms (Bill C-75) overhauled bail rules to reduce pre-trial detention, but police and opposition figures link these changes to more repeat offenders on the streets The Liberals also repealed some mandatory minimum sentences for drug and firearm offenses in 2022, aiming to address systemic bias, but drawing fire from those who believe it undermines deterrence. Canada has grappled with a severe opioid drug crisis over the last decade. Tragically, over 50,000 Canadians have died from opioid overdoses since 2016 Healthcare services more broadly have struggled to meet demand. Canadians experience long ER wait times and difficulty accessing primary care. About one in five Canadians (roughly 6.5 million people) lack a regular family doctor or nurse practitioner a gap that widened as retiring doctors outpaced new replacements. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has been ensnared in a few high-profile controversies. In the SNC-Lavalin affair (2019), the federal Ethics Commissioner found that Mr. Trudeau improperly influenced a justice minister in an attempt to halt the criminal prosecution of a corporation, violating conflict-of-interest rules. This incident – which led to resignations of top officials – raised concerns about political interference in the justice system. Another setback was the WE Charity scandal (2020), where the government awarded a major student grant contract to a charity with close personal ties to Trudeau’s family. It emerged that the organization had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to his mother and relatives. Though the contract was cancelled and the prime minister apologized, the episode reinforced perceptions of favoritism and poor judgment in awarding government deals. These and other conflicts (such as ministers found in breach of ethics for accepting inappropriate gifts or lobbying) have dented public trust. Canada’s immigration levels reached historic highs. The Liberal government steadily increased annual permanent resident admissions, aiming for about 500,000 newcomers per year by 2025 – one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world. Critics argue the pace of immigration has outstripped infrastructure. Rapid population growth has added pressure on housing, healthcare, and transit systems. Canada’s commitment to alliances has also been scrutinized – NATO partners have long urged Canada to boost defense spending (Canadian defense outlays hover around 1.3% of GDP, below the 2% NATO benchmark). The Liberal government did increase military budgets modestly and deployed forces for NATO missions, but not to the level allies hoped.

I know I"m shocked. Who could have foreseen this!? If the Liberals have their way this will be a one topic election focused solely on Trump. That was a different Trump. This one, you may have noticed, is a lot meaner and doesn't have to care about votes.

Spending two trillion on climate change that will accomplish absolutely NOTHING is moronic. I don't want to see Canada impoverished while the developing world rushes forward into wealth by using cheap coal powered energy to sell us the products we can no longer afford to make due to high energy costs. China doesn't have to be net zero for another 35 years. India and much of the rest of the developing world for another 45 years. They're going to get rich while we get poor. They'll then have the resources to cope with a warming world while we lack them. Climate change exists. It's happening. And nothing we do is going to have ANY impact on it. Spending $2 trillion on climate change will have no more impact than everyone in Canada wearing **** hats. I'd rather we all wear **** hats. It's way cheaper.

Yes, I know some of you hate Peterson. But he was willing to read Carney's book and give us quotes, and I doubt any of the rest of you will. Carney isn't just a shallow imitator like Trudeau. He's the real deal. A climate change fanatic willing to do whatever it takes to bring down CO2 emissions in Canada, regardless of how much that hurts - other people. “Our goal has been to put in place the information, tools and markets so that every financial decision takes climate change into account — to create a financial system in which a company’s contributions to climate change and climate solution are fundamental determinants of its value. So that value reflects values. At COP26 in Glasgow, we delivered twenty-four major reforms to transform the information, tools and markets at the heart of finance. These include climate stress testing, net-zero transition plans and clear, comparable and decision-useful climate disclosure so that financial markets can manage risks and seize opportunities in the climate transition.” Consider Carney’s very words, camouflaged in the moral claims that invariably accompany all such far-reaching and bone-chilling pronouncements: “Firms that align their business models with the transition to a net-zero carbon economy will be rewarded handsomely; those that fail to adapt will cease to exist.” https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-mark-carney-doesnt-value-a-prosperous-canada https://archive.is/Bp8xO

You think France or the UK would use nukes on Russia to protect the Baltics or Romania? Not a chance. I was absolutely NOT perfectly fine in any way, shape or form with it. Nor with them stealing chunks of Georgia. Nor with their attack on and slaughter in Chechnya.

Unlike the West, Russia didn't waste its time doing environmental studies and bidding contests. it immediately starting building more plants to make ammunition, tanks, planes, and everything else needed. Right now it's military production is vastly greater than all of NATO including the US. And I repost this. Ukraine is fielding around 100 combat brigades, I would say about 1/3 to 1/4 of which are "heavy" brigades with tanks and IFVs. Russia fields significantly more than that. While an individual NATO heavy brigade will likely perform better than most Ukrainian brigades, NATO can field very few heavy brigades. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2024/Who-in-NATO-Is-Ready-for-War/ Germany can field a single heavy brigade within a month. Same with France and Italy. Britain would take 2-3 months to field an armored brigade. Poland nominally has around 9-12 heavy brigades, but with unsure levels of staffing. With Erdogan in Turkey and general Turkish sentiments towards the continent and Russia, it's unsure whether the Turkish Land Forces would be part of any rapid reaction force into continental europe If the war with Ukraine ended tomorrow, Russia has in excess of 50 heavy combat brigades worth of manpower that it could shift to an attack on NATO before NATO could mobilize even half that number of brigades. With numbers and readiness like that it's not out of the realm of possibility that Russia could bite and hold part of a NATO country and let political fracturing in the alliance do the rest as the initial brigades fielded to counter it fail to dislodge Russian forces.

There is evidence of EVERYTHING I've said there.

You're welcome to go and live in Russia as you're urging Ukrainians to do.

Carlson? Who has ceaselessly praised Putin and Russia? Even saying Moscow was nicer than any city in America (Moscow is a dump aside from a few shiny oligarch towers).

KYIV, Feb 4 (Reuters) - President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visited Ukrainian troops on the southeastern front and handed out medals, his office said on Sunday, and his spokesperson said he came very close to exchanges of fire on the front line. Zelenskiy undertook the journey to Zaporizhzhia region amid speculation that his popular army chief could soon be sacked. The president, who has frequently toured areas close to the front, met soldiers in the village of Robotyne, his office said, almost on the battle line. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-visits-front-line-amid-speculation-about-fate-top-general-2024-02-04/ Yeah, that's what I said at the time. But it's true.

You know, speculation is fine. But if the Biden administration was influenced by Russian money it sure didn't show in their actions. Putin would own Ukraine had it not been for Biden leading Western allies and pumping money and weapons in. On the other hand, everything Trump has done so far has been pleasing to Putin. Hell, he's even ordered the Army's cybercommand to cease all preparations for or actions to deter Russian hacking in the US. He's done nothing but praise the man like a sycophant for years, even spouting utter nonsense like accusing Ukraine of attacking Russia. Now he's cut off weapons to Ukraine after kicking him out of the White House for daring to criticize Putin. Because they didn't investigate Russian loans to Trump Enterprises. They restricted themselves to investigation direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Mueller did not investigate the Trump family or Trump organization's commercial dealings with Russia or who in Russia invested/loaned money to their company. He only investigated evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election. He never investigated the quote from Eric Trump or the one from Donald Trump Jr. In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump Jr. said during a conference in New York in 2008. https://archive.is/nPTQX#selection-2281.1-2281.187 You should have a look at the condition of the major militaries in Europe, particularly the Germans and UK. Though France isn't much better. Among other issues, they have almost no ammo. Their fancy airplanes would be all over Russia for a week and then would be grounded for lack of missiles. They don't have many artillery shells either given most were sent to Ukraine. America was the great storehouse of ammo for its allies and now that's far from sure to be available. They have few tanks and very small, undermanned armies. And they are rebuilding about as fast as Canada. Oh, they're at least trying, but their procurement appear to be wrapped in just as many layers of red tape and bureaucracy as ours.

I don't know why people who accept anything Trump says, even when it makes no sense, even when it's an obvious lie insist on legally sanctioned 'proof' of Trump's wrongdoing. Of course, even when that arrives and he's convicted they still don't believe he did anything wrong. Fact: Trump was broke. He even told his daughter, famously, which was in his book, that a bum on the sidewalk was richer than him because while the bum had nothing he owed nothing. Trump, on the other hand, owed massively more than he had. Fact: Nobody would loan his faltering company money after it went bankrupt. So how did it survive? "The Russians saved us." Both Trump and his son said that only Russian investors and Russian loans and sales kept his company alive. Fact: The Czechs engaged in intense surveillance on Trump after he married Ivana, both in Czechoslovakia and in New York. And Russia did heavy surveillance on wealthy foreigners who visited. Question: Why would Russian oligarchs invest money in a bankrupt New York realtor? Why would they loan him money? What was in it for them? Who loaned/invested and how much? Trump won't say. Speculation: Now, given what we know of Trump and his history of skirting if not actually breaking any law he figured he could get away with, would he have turned up his nose at taking money from oligarchs under sanction? Would he have been willing to launder money for them? I honestly can't imagine he would. Would Putin know about this and have all the evidence? I can't imagine he wouldn't. Would this evidence implicate Trump alone or his sons? Maybe even Ivana? All of them have been to Russia many times before he became a politician. Why? They have no investments in Russia and it's not exactly a tourist mecca. Plus, they were under surveillance in New York, too. What information, including videos and tapes, do the Russians have on the Trumps?

I've discussed his many, many character flaws previously. I've even asked just what positive character trait this person has because I can't think of one. But his personal flaws are not really my issue. It is his incompetence, stupidity, and gullibility on the international stage that is. You don't need to 'negotiate' to run away. Which was basically what he did. He told them to please stop shooting at Americans and promised to go away and leave Afghanistan to them. It was a surrender. And he got nothing in exchange except the right to flee in peace. You mean like he did with Zelensky? Bullies always offend me. But that, like his many character flaws, is not the point. What did it do for America? Well, it outraged all of Europe and roused anti-Americanism from Norway to Italy, not just on the part of governments but ordinary people. Came across a piece last night about some Norwegian company which had cut ties with the US navy, saying they would henceforth no longer agree to fuel American warships that came into port. It's a small thing, but you can bet that attitude has exploded across Europe. There'll be many public, but more private boycotts of American goods and companies. No European government likes the US right now. What about Asia? You think places like China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, where 'face' is so important, will have the slightest respect for this administration? No. In the rest of Asia, countries that were American allies will be looking elsewhere now, since Trump has made it clear America owes no loyalty to anyone and will cut them off at the knees on any pretext. Halting nuclear proliferation has been an important American policy for seventy five years. I've read rumors that a number of countries are now considering building their own nukes since there's no way they want to rely on America as a deterrent against their enemies now. Especially places like South Korea and Japan. Hell, I've heard people in Canada suggesting it. So I think we can expect nuclear proliferation over the coming few years as countries scramble to build their own nuclear deterrent. That will make it harder and harder to keep nukes out of the hands of places like Iran. I mean, how can the world even object when nuclear-armed countries pop up across Europe and Asia among America's former allies? Countries that had been keeping their distance from China will now be turning to China as a balance against America's madman, and both Chinese and Russian influence will continue to spread through Africa, where the US has now been all but shut out, while China continues to grow its influence in South America. The risk is that America is reduced to a loud, swaggering, sneering, sulking, ignorant, no-class bully raging at the world around it as Trump turns his anger against his domestic enemies.

Tell me, what's the difference between surrendering land/territory and 'withdrawing'? Was that the peace plan the Taliban 'negotiated' with Trump five years ago?