Moonbox

You don't really have to isolate anything. CBC's cable network viewership is declining both in absolute terms and in terms of relative viewership (ie. their share of the pie is shrinking rapidly). I think we can assume "not well" considering the CBC just laid off 25% of its workforce. Legacy media is struggling in general, but this is particularly notable considering the heavy subsidies they receive.

If you say so, but Michiganers aren't making light of tariffs as you do, and most of them against them are against them.

I don't think they'll try to impeach him again unless he does something egregious or traitorous, but they don't even need to. A second-term President who loses the House is a lame-duck who'll get stymied and filibustered for 2 years until he's done. I think he has 12-18 months to really swing his clout, after which House Republicans will really start focusing on their own re-elections. If Trump's popularity wanes in the meantime, that will only embolden opposition amongst them. Outside of his tariff ranting, so far I think he's having an okay time. Rounding up and deporting the illegals and crashing the monolithic public service will enjoy support at least until it starts affecting the daily lives and wallets of the average voter. A multi-front trade war yields almost immediate negative results and whatever (small) positive outcomes arise from it will lag years behind.

I think the Kennedy family's legacy is heavily influenced by the fact that JFK was assassinated, and even then I don't think it carries the same weight it used to. RFK has been considered a joke for a long, long time, and that's the only publicity the family gets now.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Do you figure that torpedoing the economies of swing states like Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania via trade war with Canada will be popular policy among their voters, and won't affect mid-term elections?

This sort of childish whining would make more sense if wasn't you that both started the exchange, AND went immediately ad-hominem. You have the self-awareness of a rock. We're now on page two of your useless moaning, and all on account of a benign question you refused (actually couldn't) answer. If you just want to rant out your feelings without being challenged, go write in your diary. 😭

I agree, but then I only speak French. I'm not Quebecquois. They've always been very protectionist and concerned about their sovereignty. They don't even have the same legal system as the RoC. Canada doesn't have a federal securities regulator like the SEC in the states because of Quebec.

Perhaps, but I think folks overestimate the strength of Trump's mandate and how far down stupid-road they'll all go before they start pumping the breaks. True enough, but rounding up and kicking out illegals, or taking the hammer to the bureaucracy is a bit different than starting pointless/costly trade wars with close allies, or taking over Gaza.

Judging by your record on this forum, you'd be safer assuming that anyone you're talking to has already done 10x more research than you have. That would save you a lot of frustration. Instead of all of this useless rambling, you could have just answered the question, or requote the previous answer that you keep insisting you totally provided. 🙄

Except that the House can invalidate executive orders through their own legislation and through denial of funding.

I kept it vague, because I don't clear data, but the longstanding editorial bias and support for the Liberal party predictably yields a lot of opposition. The widening trust gap amongst Conservatives for the CBC is even highlighted by your link: It's an interesting read, but the last few years have put into question how valuable and accurate this sort of polling research is. I'm more inclined to trust hard data about the precipitous drop in revenue and ratings for the CBC, despite large increases in public funding. There's a disconnect here.

I suspect most of the provinces would agree...just not Quebec.

Isn't that supposing that we somehow didn't know that already? Trudeau had already committed something like $1.5-2B on that in December. These "concessions" will fall in under that umbrella, and a fentanyl tsar is just a cheesy symbolic gesture. Me too, but I wouldn't hold your breath on US gun enforcement under a Republican President. Whatever happens on that file will be for our border services to figure out.

Yes, but the one relic of the US system that actually still works is the midterms, and House Republicans with slimmer margins aren't going to fall in line with the Emperor if it means a guaranteed blow-out loss in states like Michigan.

Maybe, but I doubt it. The problem with the CBC over the last 20-25 years has been twofold: 1) It is very partisan and very agenda-based. 2) Its programming generally sucks. As a result, it not only provides near-zero value to the majority of Canadians, it also aggravates and antagonizes a large portion f the population.

Actions cause reactions. That's how this sort of thing works. I'm not sure what you figure "worked" though. $200M may as well be nothing at this scale, and a couple of meaningless platitudes don't count for much, do they? A fentanyl czar? Really?

That's why there are so many cities in Ukraine with no buildings left standing, and why Putin lost almost the entirety of his professional army. That's why he had to enact conscription and why thousands of his peasant donkey-soldiers die weekly...because Putin's pulling his punches. 🤣👌

I think it's funny how the donkeys are framing this as a big win. $200M (nothing) for border security and then some hollow, symbolic gestures. AMERICA IS GREAT AGAIN!

The diehard MAGA cultists will, but the more reasonable voters in the middle might care.

There's an obvious disparity in scale and Americans can absorb Canadian disinvestment far easier than the other way around, but it's still harmful to them. Folks are also fooling themselves if they think it's just going to be Canada. If the USA's closest and most economically integrated ally is diversifying away from the US (or boycotting it), we can safely assume the rest of the world will be too.

I feel almost the exact same way. Carney would have been a great PM, but signing up now doesn't show great political instincts, unless he figures he can play the long game and last until 2029.

You may very well be right, but it's flogging a dead horse and accomplished basically nothing beyond setting Canada/US relations back 30 years.

That seems like a problem in itself.

Can you write this in Haiku form, please? If you're going to write nonsense, you may as well be poetic about it.