This is exactly what I'd say is an example of underestimating the US. Dismissing the importance of capital markets, financial infrastructure, and software tech, while underplaying advantage in intelligence networks and military. Yes, China dominates in manufacturing and trade, and those are important, but it doesn't eliminate the power the US has on other fronts. It's an intense competition, and it's possible that the US empire doesn't come out on top. The issues you raise around manufacturing, REEs, domestic unrest are real, but they are far from settling the competition. The US is still in the lead position by far in terms of global power projection, and they are utterly ruthless. They will burn the world down if needed to rule over the ashes, and they will exploit every advantage they have over allies and adversaries alike.
Personally, I hope to see them lose their grip and to have a more balanced global system emerge, but their power is real and a collapse may be hopeful speculation but is not by any means an odds on bet at this point. It's far from settled.
Trade and finance are different flows with overlapping but different stacks. Also, the fact that China is competing doesn't mean the US is defeated. The US is making moves to create new dependencies and rewrite their monetary and financial systems in ways that they're betting will suck more capital into the dollar and push it into wider use again. There's competition now, but the US still has incredible power.
The US should never be underestimated in their capacity to leverage the tools they have to further their dominance. There's chaos in their civic society and the real economy looks rough, but their markets have kept going up. They're making aggressive moves globally to assert their power. They're tearing international and domestic systems apart, but when it comes to capital, they can try to make everywhere else look even riskier than them, and that still pulls money their way.
You've gotta be living in some alternative moral universe to be upset about that but not upset about everything else they've done around it. And, if you recognize everything else they've done around it, this seems like the most tiny and insignificant harm in comparison. But hey, if for people who haven't considered how horrendous everything else they've done is, this opens a door to start being pissed off, maybe it's a good thing.
Ah, okay. That makes sense. Appreciate the correction.
Not a great representative process for the NDP either in leadership reviews. The delegate system isn't great. Having a tiny percentage of the membership and only the most dedicated shouldn't be taken as wide support of the party membership. With modern tech it really shouldn't be so hard to do with more direct representation.
But, I guess the voters will have their say when a real election comes and the party will deal with whatever the consequence is.
Looking back now at the last NDP leadership review, I see Jagmeet got 81%, and then lost his seat and the party's prior gains.
Yeah, in 2022 they didn't use delegates and Poilievre won with 67% from several hundred thousand votes, but this time it was back to delegates again, as they did under Harper. Harper’s last win was 84% of 2,900 delegates. The exact number hasn't been released yet for this one I think, but estimates are 2,500 or so. Reporting is that 95% of delegates voted and 87.4% went for Poilievre. So, probably around 2,080 votes total for Poilievre.
That's why if you look at the coverage over the last few days, you'll read about Poilievre meeting with delegates behind the scenes in closed door meetings and trying to shore up votes. You're not doing that with hundreds of thousands of voters, but you can with such a small number deciding your future.
We'll probably get the exact numbers some time soon, but it'll be in that ballpark.
I watched a bit of his speech as I try to keep up on all the messaging from party leaders, but he's just so boring. His only evolution in the last five years has been via the image consultant that had him ditch the glasses and go to the gym. In terms of content, he's got nothing new to say and hasn't for a long time.
Voting was only in-person and for delegates. The CPC have over 600,000 members nationally. They had under 3,000 eligible to vote on leadership, so <0.5% of members choose the leader.
Tells you a lot about the party.
Compare that to the other party also about to select a new leader, the NDP. In their process, 100% of members get a vote on their leader, no matter where they are in the country. People just had to join before January 28, and fees I think are as low as a dollar for people who couldn't afford it.
Was never even in play. For one, he keeps a firm grip on power inside the CPC and they make it pretty clear that anyone who goes against him will be attacked brutally and publicly for doing so. Then, on the voter side, if you choose your voters, the voters will choose you. The way they set up the leadership vote ensured those voting would be his base.
He and Jenni Byrne captured the party and keep a tight grip on it. Even though Byrne has formally been distanced, she's not.
I use a Shoppers Simply pharmacy and haven't seen that. Really hope I don't. They're the best pharmacist I've had and have helped much more than just filling prescriptions. It's night and day from the experience I've had dealing with the Shoppers pharmacies built into the retail stores.
Yeah, undermining the stability of the country while waging trade war and threatening annexation. It's part of the puzzle. This is hybrid warfare. War is not just bombs and bullets. We have a standard legal term for that, and it's "international armed conflict." War is a more expansive idea, not clearly defined but arguably very appropriate here.
No need for Canada to join the EU. The EU makes sense as a union of countries with shared or overlapping geography and interests. Canada is not in Europe. We are a Pacific country in addition to being an Atlantic country. 70% of our non-US trade flows through Vancouver to and from Pacific nations. Canada is better served by retaining sovereignty to negotiate trade independently to make the most of working with Europe on one side and Pacific nations on the other. Being one voice from North America among a chorus of voices from another continent in regulatory decision-making to govern all is not a good idea.
Carney has been advocating for variable geometry as Canada's method ro go forward and has only seen his support from Canadians go up in this time. Joining the EU is not variable geometry. Trade, cooperation and alignment on many issues where there is compatibility is good enough.
Nobody's interested in a propaganda sock puppet account's hot takes. But, I'll admit its kind of funny that under your various accounts you always accuse others of "whataboutism" and then you post this lol. You're always good for a laugh, no matter which name you're using that day.
Appeasement is not going to work with this guy. It's time for some allies, like Europe, to finally show some backbone and align against the US in a unified front to push back against this. If he can keep picking on one nation at a time while their allies all capitulate to avoid being targeted, everyone will suffer much worse in the end.
It's much more than just an ignorant statement. The US is actively supporting the secessionist movement in Canada. The State Department has met with the leaders if the Alberta secessionist movement in Washington to support them and told them they would immediately recognize Alberta as a country when the time comes. No doubt there is funding flowing to the secessionist movement from the US. Bessent is also not just some innocent guy pushing numbers around for the economy. He admitted to engineering the currency crash in Iran as part of their regime change plan and called it "economic statecraft."
The US is working to undermine Canadian sovereignty. This is the same bullshit the CIA does around the world, and they've been working on it for a while in Alberta.
They could cover the flight and give 100% off accommodations. Wouldn't make a difference. Not going back. There's a big world of places I would much rather spend time in and I'm at peace with never going to the US again.
This is exactly what I'd say is an example of underestimating the US. Dismissing the importance of capital markets, financial infrastructure, and software tech, while underplaying advantage in intelligence networks and military. Yes, China dominates in manufacturing and trade, and those are important, but it doesn't eliminate the power the US has on other fronts. It's an intense competition, and it's possible that the US empire doesn't come out on top. The issues you raise around manufacturing, REEs, domestic unrest are real, but they are far from settling the competition. The US is still in the lead position by far in terms of global power projection, and they are utterly ruthless. They will burn the world down if needed to rule over the ashes, and they will exploit every advantage they have over allies and adversaries alike.
Personally, I hope to see them lose their grip and to have a more balanced global system emerge, but their power is real and a collapse may be hopeful speculation but is not by any means an odds on bet at this point. It's far from settled.