Moonbox

Pretty sure I saw that on facebook too.

You said he was directing it. You should look up what that word means. 😑

Nobody said he had no influence. The question is how much. You don't seem to understand the concept of "advisor". I do financial planning for a living. One of the key features of the role is that clients get to choose the advice they follow. Some of them follow most of your advice. Some of them follow only some of it. Some of them follow almost none of it merely pay you to bounce ideas off of. You've decided that Carney was effectively in control of Trudeau's fiscal mismanagement because it suits your purposes, not because it's based on any real knowledge. We can tell just by your last post how misinformed and conflated your understanding of his role in the Liberal government was. I don't actually believe this math. I suspect if the election was held in the next few months the results wouldn't look anywhere near that good for the Liberals.

No, he's not at all the inventor of that...lol. That op-ed may have said a bunch of things you didn't like, but it didn't even mention the Emergencies Act. That's a pretty easy fact-check. It also didn't say anything about de-banking anyone. Same reason he appoints a Justice Minister and then railroads and dismisses her when she doesn't tow the line. 🙃

I don't know what Trudeau listened to. Nothing he did really seemed like it was based on economic advice though. Agreed, Trudeau had zero economic ability or sense. I'm saying that there's a pretty wide chasm of grey area between "he had no influence on Trudeau" and "he was in charge of Trudeau's economy". 🙄 I don't get the impression that Trudeau listened to anyone unless they were telling him what he wanted to hear, and that goes well beyond economic advice.

Hey that's my home town! I'm going back to visit in a couple of weeks. The only seat in Ontario that voted Green, LOL. The population of Guelph generally lives in a bit of a bubble.

He consulted/advised on it. Of couse you take that to mean he was in charge and making all of the decisions because...well that's comfy self-affirmation.

Really can't disagree more. Cuba and Venezuala never posed a threat to the USA. Iran did/does, but you can't half-ass the solution. Dropping some bombs on them, assassinating their leader etc, doesn't make the US more safe. There's still stockpiles of almost-fully-enriched uranium hidden underground. The regime survives. All you're doing is cementing the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent as Iran's #1, absolute priority, and that the United States doesn't respect treaties or negotiate in good faith. Trump wonders why the Iranians aren't rising up? They had frontrow seats to the last time the USA encouraged a Shiite rebellion and then walked away from it. They could, but as with everything else the questions is always whether they should. The free market has a big say in a lot of that, and they don't see it as a good investment. They don't really take your feelings into account on that, comrade.

Why worry about facts when you're just publishing your internal monologue?

I'm curious about your feelings towards Trump attacking Iran.

Pretty comfy way of looking at the world, isn't it? If you don't like the answer/reality you're getting, it's just fake news. Refinery infrastructure is incredibly expensive and often takes decades to get a Return on Investment. A lot of drilling/pipeline/refining projects don't make sense for companies if oil is <$100/barrel. That's why there are thousands of issued drilling permanents for US shale, with nobody actually using them. That's a big reason why pipeline projects out of Alberta don't get anywhere. That's why Canada doesn't refine much of its own oil.

Yep. I too await his sources and clear documentation on that...years later. 😂

No, you quoted what I actually said, and then decided that made up the stupidest and most ridiculous possible interpretation of that. I'm making fun of you and your sad efforts to focus the debate on moralizing the reactions of an authoritarian and repressive dictatorship under attack. It's like you're shocked and outraged that Iran retaliated or something... Maybe you are that stupid.

That's just you insisting on the dumbest and most nonsensical interpretation of what I've actually said. If you want to argue with your own imagination, go ahead. My input is not required for that. 🤡👍

The idea that I support Iran. I've never said anything whatsoever to that effect, and was very clear what I thought about them. That's where you keep trying to steer the conversation, and it's retarded. This is one of the dumbest things you've ever written on this forum, and that's remarkable for someone with a track record like yours. I think the fumes from licking Trump's butthole have left you confused and delirious.

Except the game here was always yours. You're just strawmanning and trying to change the subject. Criticizing Trump for his poorly planned adventure and flailing to contain and mitigate the 100% predictable consequences has nothing whatsoever to do with Iran's moral footing in the conflict.

Disagree. Red is the color of strawberries. Blue is the color of blueberries. Still, we get along.

My car has 4 wheels. My bicycle only has 2. Both get me to places quicker that walking. You Americans are crazy about red meat.

Thank you for pointing out the difference between mathematical physics and geopolitics. That's very informative. 🙄 Cool. Call them wrong. Do global energy prices care? Does it change that Iran's reaction was predictable and near-certain, and that the Orange Blob doesn't have a plan to deal with it?

No, that's just you inventing what you'd prefer to argue against, because you're not capable of debating reasonably. Do you disagree that Iran blocking the Straits was a predictable consequence of them being attacked? 🤨

I know you think that tells a good story, but that's based on you knowing less than nothing about economics, isn't it? Trade deficits =/ bad As evidence you can compare US GDP growth to that of Germany or Japan since the 1980's. Who grew more? The US, with it's constant trade deficits, or the the Japs and the Gerrys, with their constant surpluses? Hmmmmm.... Hmmmmmm..... It's a grand mystery:

No. That's a lie - and an utterly ridiculous one at that. 🤣 I've only pointed out that Iran has done exactly what they've done in the past, exactly what everyone expected they'd do, and exactly what they threatened they'd do. Calling it "wrong" is about as useful and intelligent as calling it wrong for the tree bouncing the golfball you shot into it back at your nuts. Actions have reactions. Evil and repressive regimes respond unfavorably to being attacked. If you don't properly account for those consequences (as your Orange Baboon rarely does), then the results aren't great.

Oh okay. They were bullied into accepting it. Got it. They weren't the ones who championed GATT (now the WTO). It wasn't Reagan that initiated NAFTA negotiations or anything. Poor little America just got told what they needed to accept. 🫠

Understanding how difficult it is to keep helpless, giant ships safe in a narrow strait within point-blank range of hundreds of miles of hostile coast is common sense. How is that "wanting Iran to win here"? This is just another example of you being incapable of debating the point being made, and instead running away to debate the dumbest and most unreasonable interpretation you imagined all for yourself. 🤡

Right, yup, totally. Americans spent the last 30 years pushing "lop-sided trade" deals that didn't help them at all. TOTALLY MAKES SENSE. 🤡