danielle smith is actually right; there are ways to push back without retaliating, and retaliating should be a last resort, not a first resort. the state is not acting to preserve itself. there are people involved, and retaliation is going to harm those people more than it helps them.

it may become necessary, but it should be seen as a requirement that is arrived at with extreme caution, and not as some kind of saving of face or as a way to advance an ego in a scrap or something. we lose, by definition, if we retaliate.

the canadian government may also want to stop for a second and think through what it's doing, which is providing the americans with a pretext to invade, exactly when they're talking about it. would the united states seize a hydro factory if we shut it down? well?

let's see exactly what they do, but we should have social assistance ready first and retaliation ready second. it's probably not the smart approach.

does mark carney have any policy ideas to put forward that would help canadians - people. humans - avoid the brunt of tariffs without poking the elephant?