Moonbox

If it's smart, it will just be targeted to hurt specifically Republican areas, on goods that are easily replaceable. Nobody needs Bourbon or JD, for example. I think we're probably limited in what damage we can do with our own tariffs. The greater impact on Americans will be consumer prices as all of their inputs from Canada become substantially more expensive. Meanwhile, much of what Canada actually trades is raw materials, which trade openly on the global markets and only need proper export channels. If nothing else, hopefully this encourages Canada to diversify its export markets and trading relationships.

Trump, Vance, Marco Rubio among others. Publicly validating Putin's propaganda is leverage!? 🤣🤣🤣 Military aid being contingent on a deal is leverage. Openly providing justification for Putin's war efforts accomplishes nothing but emboldening and strengthening Russia. Trump "backing off" on that is just useless, deluded coping on your part - the sort of mental gymnastics you do to rationalize how little your convictions count for when they conflict with what's going on in the MAGA cult.

It may be his logic, it doesn't mean it's good logic. As you already mentioned, Trump's tariff efforts on China have failed, and they'll similarly fail on Mexico and Canada. Some jobs may come back, and some of them may actually be important to come back (like a domestic steel industry, or microchips etc), but more jobs will be lost on account of US supply chains being less efficient overall. It may hurt more for Canada than it will for the US, but nobody is "winning" from the exchange. Donald Trump's fixation on tariffs demonstrates a profound ignorance (or disregard) of how economies actually work, and we'll see that manifest in years of economic pain. Meanwhile, the US loses willing partners against China, who will be more than happy to strike deals with similarly affected nations. If China is the real adversary, then this is the US biting its nose to spite its face.

A few things: 1) Fewer people are watching, despite the budget increasing. 2) Traditional network TV news is in deep decline, substituted for online media. 3) This doesn't have much to do with taxpayers subsidizing a politicized public broadcaster.

A peace deal with no security guarantees, with a Russian adversary who's demonstrated nothing they sign is worth the paper it's written on? What's that worth to Ukraine? Nothing. The idea that American "mineral rights" somehow substitute for actually meaningful security guarantees is a funny magic trick that Republicans are trying to convince the world of. Did Trump not come out and say that Zelensky is a dictator and that Ukraine started the war? Did he not just halt aid to Ukraine, as we predicted? The idea that you're interested in a fact-based discussion is farcical considering the mental backflips you're doing to try justifying the above.

I first started noticing the politicization of the CBC in the mid 2000's. At some point leading up to the Harper days, I remember it getting scolded by the Ombudsman for left-leaning bias. I can't find articles for it that far back, but it's been a slow-burn. It's not just leadership either. Over time, the leadership influences hiring and that culture ends up taking root top-down and bottom-up. You end up with a lack of diversity of viewpoints. In today's age, despite its bias, I'd still consider the CBC "moderate" compared to corporate shills like the Toronto Star or the National Post, but I'm not paying taxes to support the other two. I can just ignore them. When you see the former CEO battling it out in public with Pierre Poilievre, you get a clear perspective of its priorities. It's tough to maintain objectivity when you're being attacked, but as a publicly-funded broadcaster, your job is to show Canadians your value, not attack political opponents. Almost nobody does anymore.

As predicted, not only is Trump trying to throw Ukraine under the bus and now openly parroting the propaganda you've spent months arguing against, you're also predictably not facing that contradiction with any sober thinking or perspective either. As usual, you've elected instead to re-organize the universe in your brain, scrambling it up to somehow reconcile with and justify how Trump is doing exactly what you said he would not do. It's pathetic.

Yeah, Zelensky caused it, just like how Ukraine started the war (according to Trump). As predicted, now that Trump is openly and traitorously advocating on behalf of Putin and parroting his propaganda, you're warping reality around yourself to cope with the fact that he's doing exactly what you argued against, and claimed he wouldn't do. You're a freaking joke! 🤣

Since it's such a subjective claim, I'm not sure what sort of evidence you're looking for. For my part, maybe rather than saying the CBC is a tool deliberately wielded for specific aims, I should clarify that I mean it's become political, and its objectivity is compromised by how it and the Liberal Party butter each other's bread. The Board of the CBC is appointed directly by Parliament. The way it should be, and the way it is elsewhere with more successful public broadcasters, is that the Board is appointed at arm's length by an independent body, ensuring a measure of non-partisanship. The conflict of interest in the status-quo is obvious, and regardless of how well-meaning the CBC's leadership is, that conflict will manifest in a myriad of ways - sometimes obvious (like Catherine Tait going to war with Pierre Poilievre) and sometimes more insidiously.

What part aren't you sure of? Harper was the target of a lot of CBC's rhetoric and bias, which already was deeply entrenched. What changes he made were budget cuts and some half-hearted attempt to bring it into the 21st century, amidst a lot of minority governments. Needless to say, this went over like a bag of bricks with the CBC, who tilted even further towards the Liberals. There's a parasitic feedback-loop between the CBC and the Liberal Party, the former providing friendly coverage for the latter, who in turn hand-pick its leadership and maintain the protective bubble around them. That's an asinine organizational dynamic - flawed at its most fundamental level. Other, better, public broadcasters (like in the UK, South Korea, Australia etc) benefit from arm's length oversight and leadership. The CBC's organizational structure is more akin to a rinky-dink banana republic's.

I think they became convinced of their own self-importance and their own perceived value to Canada, and it's an attitude that become ingrained in the CBC's culture. Along the way they seem to have forgotten that they need to actually demonstrate that value to Canadians rather than take it for granted. You can look at the BBC for a model of how this could and should, and it's not just a question of scale. The BBC promotes and fosters British culture (whatever that may look like) and broadcasts it around the world. The CBC, on the other hand, has always been more interested in curating and preaching what it thinks Canadian culture is, and the audience was never interested. Since the CBC has never had third-party or even arms-length process for appointing leadership, the buck can't stop at "management". This is a political problem. The CBC has been wielded as a political tool, predictably for the benefit of the politicians who appointed all its leadership.

You say it as though they didn't do almost everything they could to bring that fight on themselves, and that this isn't the inevitable and obvious outcome of their entitlement and hubris.

an existential threat they created for themselves, I'd argue. Nothing will get your taxpayer subsidies challenged like a decades-long political bias, and the more they struggle and rail against it, the worse the reckoning will be.

You've countered squat, with your feeble attempts being nothing more than juvenile reductionism. The long and storied reality of women being harassed and threatened going to abortion clinics gets, or the occasional bouts of outright violence, are reduced to "hurt feelings". You've explained nothing. When asked to explain why these incredibly narrow and specific limitations to free speech are unreasonable, your response has consistently been "Because it's about free speech". 🤣👌 When you're ready to offer an actual argument, or even some half-baked reasoning, I'll listen. Until then you're just chasing your tail and making yourself look like a fool.

If you can separate what truly is just speculative investing vs more conventional capital investment (which has a speculative element) that could work, but it requires a government willing to make tough and long-term decisions and stop caving into every special interest that whines. True enough.

I already have, so to suggest otherwise is just more of your dishonesty. I've outlined, at least half a dozen times, the justifications and benefits of the law's implementation. Contrast that to the near-absolute lack of any harm this causes to free speech, and your obvious evasion and inability to describe any, and the debate ends there. Feel free to offer something, or anything, if you want anyone to take your seriously.

OOPS!? Short memory or something? When you're being asked why the law is an unreasonable limit to free speech, not being able to do anything but circle back and tell us about freedom of speech is a pretty goofy answer. 👌

The only purpose served for protesting that close to the abortion clinic was to protest, so why do you keep pretending it's just silent prayer? LOL! 🤡 You mean that he clownishly ranted about, as if pestering and hassling women within 100m of abortion clinics is the cardinal right that should be held above anything else! Why? You can't explain, but you'll do mental gymnastics to defend literally anything and everything that the Orange Buffoon and his sycophants say. LOL!!! 🤡 No, it's not. This is just you lying again, and doing mental backflips trying to reconcile the absurdity of your position. As you know, this retarded donkey chose to protest in front of an abortion clinic, knowing it was prohibited, and spent two hours arguing with the officer who asked him to leave, before any action was taken against him. It's truly a f*ck around find out moment! 🤣

Directly in front of an abortion clinic, fully aware of the law that prohibits protesting within 100m of it and that the law views such activity as the obvious protest activity that it is. Nope, that's not my argument at all! 🤣 It's kind of pathetic to see you spin this sort of nonsense when you're so often the guy that whines about other people being dishonest. Here you are, brazenly and shamelessly making shit up! My argument is that the law's purpose and intention is not to prohibit prayer, but to allow a safe area around abortion clinics where women don't have to worry about their privacy or about being harassed, among other things, by protestors. You've conjured up a clownworld fantasy where secret police and informers are waiting to pounce the moment they see something that might resemble prayer as folks go about their regular day. It's retarded.

Because he's not just silently praying. It's a deliberate, overt protest, and the law restricts such activity within 100m of abortion clinics so that women feel say seeking their services. Calling it "silent prayer" is a flimsy and transparent attempt at a loophole, and nobody reasonable is buying. The Law is has very little time to spare this sort of nonsense, and that's why it gets dismissed. It's the same argument. What do you figure is happening here? Are there are secret police, cameras and informers watching people's windows around abortion clinics, making sure that nobody is caught praying inside their homes?!? 🤣🤣 🤣

Because it is? It just doesn't matter. It's so limited in scope and narrow in focus, that the positives outweigh the negatives (which nobody can explain) by orders of magnitude.

No, that's not my argument at all. This is you explicitly and obviously lying, which is funny coming from a guy who complains about that constantly. I've already provided a substantial list of reasons why protestors outside of abortion clinics are problematic, and pretending that I haven't is a pretty clear indication of how deliberately dishonest you're being. I've already been over that, so pretending I ignored it is just more of your dishonesty. The fact that I'm not going to keep circling back on the same useless points you're trying to make doesn't change that. As before: When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech, and how would-be protestors are being harmed by having to protest 101m away from, instead of within 100m of, abortion clinics, let us know. Until then, you're just making a fool of yourself.

What he was or was not a "fan" of is irrelevant given this has nothing to do with his job as BoE governor. Any policies related to these would have been the responsibility of the Conservative government Lizzy was part of. None of this has anything to do with her disastrously bad economic policies, and the fact that she made a laughingstock out of herself over it. I think it's safe to say that nobody is going to care much about what Justin has to say about the economy, and I'm not sure what Bill Clinton's penis has to do with anything. I have no idea what you're even trying to say in this quote.

Trying to frame this as a debate about hurt feelings is deliberately dishonest and disingenuous. Considering how much time you spend complaining about other people's dishonesty on this forum, you're just embarrassing yourself now. When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech, and how would-be protestors are being harmed by having to protest 101m away from, instead of within 100m of, abortion clinics, let us know. Until then, you're just making a fool of yourself.