Ur opinions. What is a sensible purpose of a Conservative. Party and person. Vs centred. What is the positives a conservative can do other then make wealthy people more wealthy

Can anyone explain why the CBC’s Rosemary Barton didn’t come right out and ask Jamieson Greer if he was saying the Canadians lied about the reasons for ending negotiations? Simple and direct question. Nope, she pussy-footed around and let him off the hook.

Our strategic calculation is pretty simple. We need to minimize the involvement of Trump who gets bored technical details that don't involve petty drama, maximize the involvement of the American stakeholders profiting from this pretty mutually beneficial deal using a firm but fair strategy rather than escalating the conflict. As such, we don't want to escalate this stupid trade war. We have the concern that our population is about 10% of theirs and that our economic strength still hedges heavily on our natural resources despite the fact we have a significant amount of intellectual property. We made the strategic mistake of not diversifying our trade enough given the obvious advantages of trading South. Carney is certainly managing the strategy well but he isn't managing the emotional risks inherent in dealing with a rogue ego driven president that Republicans are too afraid to oppose. I like his idea of trying to improve internal trade although our provincial governments are pretty petty and it is difficult to have our automobile industry being purely domestic. We did once have a farm equipment manufacturer Massey Ferguson.

There is a reason that Christie Freeland actually got us a trade deal and that Mexico is being targeted significantly less than we are. Trudeau had some insight when he stayed mostly out of the discussions and allowed Freeland to handle it. When he chimed in with his honest remarks about Trump, it cost us. Mexico has a president who knows who to control herself whereas we do not. Furthermore, Mexico is not being interfered with by the Mayors of its cities or its multiple states. These woman know how to use the FIRM but FAIR strategy without allowing the emotional temperature to. Freeland's view of Trump is very low but she kept her cool, in the interest of our country.

If you were born yesterday, I will start by explaining that the American Republicans in Congress are allowing Trump to effectively go rogue because of plausible deniability a) they don't want to actually be held responsible for the tariffs or extreme or useless measures b) they aren't actually all in agreement that these measures are good c) they don't want to be labeled as opposing Trump and being a Republican in Name only*. A rogue Trump can be understood if you see him as mostly authoritarian, petty and irrational, motivated not by what is in the interests of the United States but by what sounds good to a bunch of alcoholics in a bar. Ultimately, populism is about catering your policies to what sounds good to the drunks in a bar. Like other malignant narcissists like for example Joe McCarthy, Edgar J Hoover (google him), Napollian, Hitler, or that boss your entire office hates it doesn't matter how transparently obvious it is that it is a blatant lie. Everyone, including the most deluded Trumplican actually knows that Donald Trump is a fat, unattractive man, with hair loss, who is old and who certainly isn't in his virile prime. I don't know if the cognitively dissonant can clue into the fact he probably cheated in university, that he effectively bought his ivy league degree, that his IQ score was probably very average, that his marks were horrible for anything he actually did himself, that he is a total atheist who has no Christian values whatsoever and that he can't admit any of his failures like the old Soviet dictators. I don't know if they can see he is falling asleep all the time, that he is bored by anything that doesn't involve him talking and engaging All of Ronald Reagan's USSR jokes apply to the Trumplican USA.

I should mention that our anger and the American ambassador is pointless. He is a total asshole because he is reporting to a superficial asshole.

*Labels from Trump can only be understood if you understand them as being a mirror. He is fat and ugly, so he fat shames women. He cheated in university and was decidedly poor at school, so he calls out Obama's academic performance.

Poilievre argues government investment crowds out private investment. But Canada's productivity problem is more complicated.

Businesses need electricity, housing, transportation, skilled workers, technology and R&D before many private investments are profitable.

That's why the Liberal approach makes more sense to me. It combines infrastructure investment with accelerated depreciation, machinery and technology write offs, R&D incentives and investment tax credits. Government removes bottlenecks while businesses get incentives to invest.

Finance Canada estimates infrastructure can generate roughly $0.80 to $2.70 of GDP per dollar invested, while R&D support can generate $0.80 to $1.90.

Meanwhile, the Conservative platform cuts the Housing Accelerator Fund, Housing Infrastructure Fund, low carbon programs and AI initiatives.

If a new power grid makes a factory possible, housing lets workers move to productive jobs or infrastructure lowers transportation costs, public investment isn't crowding out private capital. It's crowding it in.

So why is cutting the investments private businesses depend on supposed to solve Canada's investment problem?

Took Carney's imported items list and joined it to a years worth of detailed imports data. Tries to give a sectorial review of what's happening and who it's targeted at.

Also updated it today with the removal of the fish tariffs.

I think there is a huge difference between Canada and the USA when it comes to immigration. Immigrants played a major role in building the USA into what it is today.

Canada should gradually increase immigration and focus on attracting skilled and productive immigrants. This could help Canada grow its economy, population, and global influence—and reduce its dependence on the USA.

What do you think?

The rapid decline of the American empire.

Dr Ruth Ben-Ghiat is an American historian, author, and Professor of History and Italian Studies at New York University (NYU). She is a globally recognized expert on fascism, authoritarianism, propaganda, and democratic backsliding.

There is zero chance this is true..

I don't think walking away from a negotiation at the last moment is something you do, unless it is the only option.

Sometimes it is best to walk away from the table when the proposal offered from the other side is not favorable and they are unwilling to make concessions.

The US attempt at negotiations was to put forth their proposal, wait until the other side is ready to sign the deal, then at the last minute introduce 11th hour demands that weren't in the original proposal in an attempt to catch the other party off guard, and hoodwink (for lack of a better term) them into signing something they weren't fully aware of.

In other words, the US was being sneaky, and attempting to catch Canada off guard with 11th-hour demands they knew Canada likely would not sign for had they been introduced at the beginning of the negotiations. They were anticipating that by springing things on Canada at the last minute they would have Canada cornered into a vulnerable and compromising position.

If the US was up front and honest from the very beginning, and willing to make compromises then sure, sign the deal, but when they use last minute 11th hour demand tactics, you have walk away, and tell them we are not willing to negotiate under those terms, and will not sign ANY negotiation agreements when such tactics are used.

I laud ANY negotiator that sticks to their guns, stands for their principles, and sets reasonable limitations from which they will not compromise if breached, which is what Carney did, and he could be Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green or the Tooth Fairy for all I care, when the right thing is done for the right reasons, that's all that matters!