i strongly support annihilating the barbarians in yemen and hope that canada participates in a global mission to erase them from the planet.

anybody standing up for the yemeni terrorists - anybody - should be seen as a national security threat by both the united states and canada. there is no acceptable argument for aligning with this particular group, which has absolutely no redeemable qualities, whatsoever.

this is roughly how trudeau came off to the power elite in washingon.

we need to tone it down.

the developing talking point from the white house is that america prefers to deal with russia than canada.

this is absurd, but the old tory canadian apparatchiks should not write this off as nonsense. the intent is to take canada down a notch because the trudeau government was vocally and aggressively pushing itself as america's bestie, and it was actually starting to piss them off. the trudeau administration appears to have ignored years of subtle hints to tone it down. worse, the canadian government has adopted an extremely anti-russian policy position since 2015, which is a direct move away from the non-alignment that canada tried to hold through the 60s-00s. an aggressive, pro-war, anti-russian government in ottawa is a major liability to washington. the truth is that it's a major liability to canadians, too. i don't want to die in estonia, fighting a war i don't give the slightest fuck about.

trudeau was not his father, he was an intellectual lightweight and shallow thinker brainwashed by the hollywood propaganda he grew up on, into seeing the american-led west as being in an existential struggle with the commies that doesn't end until william shatner (a canadian) becomes dictator of the united nations. canada's foreign policy has become delusional and in the interests of nobody in the country or on the continent at all.

this isn't the ideal way to direct a policy shift in canada, but we need to change course. they're basically right. the cold war ended decades ago. it's time to let go of the blockbuster film 70s and 80s hollywood propaganda and we certainly shouldn't be driven by 40 year old propaganda when the propagandist has justifiably shifted direction and changed course in an overdue reaction to actual reality, which is that russia is a democracy with a difficult spectrum.

in the west, our parties are all about the same and nothing really changes after the election. in russia, there are legit fascists and legit stalinists running every single election, and the system has to navigate that harsh reality. putin represents a grand coalition of the liberals and conservatives and has held power for so long because he can keep the stalinists out. there is a social democratic party, but it's outside of the grand coalition and would end up in 3rd or 4th in open elections.

in order for a multiparty system like exists in the west to develop n russia, russia needs to address the lingering threat of a return to stalinism, which remains serious and real. the stalinists remain the only other competitive political force in russia and the only viable alternative to putin and his grand coalition.

reliving rambo over and over again is not what canadians or washington needs or wants from the pmo.

because the reason people don't want to become soldiers is that the pay is too low.

that is the dumbest fucking thing i've ever heard.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/federal-election-2025/article/carney-promising-raises-for-canadian-armed-forces-to-tackle-recruiting-shortfall/

in a properly regulated market, supply shouldn't be driving demand, but that's not exactly what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that a lack of supply is inflating prices, and those inflated prices (called a housing bubble) are suppressing demand. this is a subtle but important point. supply side economics is the theoretical mistake that you can control demand by changing levels of supply, generally - that it goes up and down the graph, proportionally. i am not remotely making that argument, although i realize that a novice might think i am due to the language. to the extent that i'm arguing that demand is low due to artificial scarcity hiking the price too high, and that you fix the demand issue by hiking supply via direct government spending, i'm explicitly describing that as a market failure, and presenting direct government investment as the solution to the broken market.

these are very different analyses and very different arguments, but i acknowledge that the language is confusing.

housing in general has become so scarce that new housing in canada has become so expensive and so out of the reach of canadians that builders have stopped building, because nobody is buying, because nobody can afford to buy. a modest suburban house in canada is going to cost something like two million dollars. it's insane.

the market is not correctly assigning value to new housing, but inflating it due to artificially generated scarcity, which has become systemic due to a failure by government to intervene (specifically by deregulating and privatizing the immigration system). this is generally what happens when governments fail to correctly intervene in markets and instead allow them operate without regulation, they fail to assign value correctly.

we consequently are not facing a failure in government oversight, but a failure in a lack of government. we're facing a market failure.

this market failure requires government to intervene by directly building housing itself in order to increase supply to lower costs to increase demand.

the cause of this overwhelming market failure is multiple governments at multiple levels "leaving it up to the market" rather than intervening and fixing it. the market will not fix itself; it hasn't fixed itself yet. a hands off approach will simply lead to more market failure and continued impossible housing costs.

both major party candidates, however, are true believers in the religion of markets. their faith will not be shaken no matter what evidence is placed in front of them and we have no expectation in front of us as voters and citizens besides another four years of market failure and another government that refuses to intervene to fix the broken market.

it's an utterly terrible idea right now. it's the opposite of a responsible government policy, and the trivial amount collected will have no effect on demand.

both of the major parties are broadcasting very clearly that those workers harmed by the tariffs will be cut out and left behind, with little to no government support. rather, we're going to get austerity, cuts in services, subsequent high unemployment and lower taxes whether we want it or not.

“Housing starts are collapsing in large parts of the country, including Ontario, and especially in Toronto. This is due to restrictive land use rules, Byzantine approvals processes, and high tax burdens,” said Spoke.

no. supply is not driven by bureaucracy. that is the height of economic ignorance. supply is driven by demand. housing starts are low because demand is low due to impossibly high prices. yet, latent demand to purchase housing is sky high.

the solution is that government needs to buy up more houses through the cmhc in order to drive down prices, in order to generate more demand. the solution is more government intervention to fix a market failure, not less red tape and more market failure.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/pierre-poilievre-gst-new-homes

the bloc mp is exaggerating.

but, his point should be well taken, actually.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-outraged-after-bloc-candidate-says-they-are-worse-than-trump

it's kind of not surprising that a journalist would leak plans to the media.

it was consequently kind of dumb to make a journalist secretary of defense.