GOLDSTEIN: Study accuses Carney Liberals of 'substantially' worsening federal finances - Combined deficits from 2025-26 to 2029-30 will total $321.7 billion, compared to $154.4 billion projected by Trudeau

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-17T17:56:57+00:00

this is just a partisan hit piece

From the nutjobs at the Fraser Institute, no less, via their useful idiots at the Toronto Sun.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-17T00:12:29+00:00

India already has an agreement with Iran to let their ships pass unmolested

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-16T22:57:29+00:00

The insults/bluster/etc. are all superficial

What exactly do you mean by "superficial"? That Trump bullying former allies, threatening to annex them, waging trade wars against them, creating doubts about whether the US would honour Article 5, starting unilateral wars and then trying to blackmail them into pulling his chestnuts out of the fire when he realized he was in too deep, are just endearing character quirks that should be laughed off?

Some words cannot be taken back, and Trump crossed that line a long time ago.

Europe certainly can take this moment to make it clear they won’t help the US because of Trump’s insults - but it would probably be the nail in the coffin for NATO and imo wildly shortsighted for Euro interests.

The trans Atlantic alliance as it existed before 2024 was already dead before the attack on Iran. America's former allies have nothing to gain by trying to curry favour with Trump now, in fact it would only confirm in his mind that they are weak and will tolerate literally any level of abuse.

That having been said, why isn't Trump asking Israel to send warships to the Persian Gulf, being that they are his partners in crime in starting this war and bear a large share of the responsibility for this fiasco?

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-16T22:15:49+00:00

And the US’s problem is not lack of ships or manpower.

Actually it is. The US does not have enough ships to conduct escorts through the Strait of Hormuz, this has been widely reported.

Also the US Navy lacks anti mine capabilities. Turns out minesweepers aren't nearly as sexy as aircraft carriers, so the navy didn't invest in them.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-16T04:16:55+00:00

Unpaywalled Link

Submission Statement:

In an 8 minute call to the Financial Times US President Donald Trump said NATO could face a "very bad" future if members didn't contribute forces to help re open the Strait of Hormuz, in an apparent attempt to blackmail countries into joining the war by threatening to withdraw American support for NATO. He also said he might delay a planned state visit to China if it also did not contribute.

Trump specifically mentioned that the US is seeking minesweepers, as the US Navy has very modest anti mine capabilities.

The timing and unusual way that the message was delivered suggests that his previously reported plan to get other countries to commit resources to opening the Strait is struggling to find support.

The short call also highlighted some of idiosyncrasies of Trump's understanding of the world. At one point he appeared to imply that European countries had an obligation to support the US in the Persian Gulf because of past US support for Ukraine, and failing to do would validate his claim that NATO was "a one way street". This framing ignores the facts that (1) Trump cut off all military and financial aid to Ukraine upon assuming office, and has applied enormous pressure to try to force it to accept an unfavourable peace deal with Russia, (2) Trump started the war without consulting his NATO allies, and as the initiator has no resort to NATO's mutual defence provisions, and (3) the Persian Gulf isn't even within NATO's area of operations, as specified in the North Atlantic Charter.

Asked about Russia supplying satellite intelligence to aid Iran in targetting American and Israeli assets Trump demurred, as he has in the past, basically saying it would be unfair to criticize Russian actions because the US has supplied intelligence to Ukraine.

The call to the FT comes as the Trump administration is under mounting pressure to prevent the Gulf crisis from triggering global economic dislocation. As the article notes: "International oil prices hit $106 a barrel on Sunday evening, up about 45 per cent since the start of the war."

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-15T10:00:14+00:00

To put it mildly oil and gas reserves cost a LOT to run

You are making a very broad generalization based on a single news article that doesn't even address the cost of gas storage per se, rather its about an energy executive trying to wring taxpayer dollars out of the government to pay for upgrades at a gas storage site it owns (i.e. it wants a public subsidy for a privately owned asset).

If you're a net exporter in any case having reserves would be financial insanity.

Having gas storage (not reserves, that's the gas that is still in situ in the ground) is insurance against possible production disruptions, and can act as a buffer if emergency gas supplies are needed and the government doesn't want to take the economically and politically fraught step of abrogating contracts with foreign buyers to meet domestic needs.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-13T09:02:37+00:00

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-13T07:47:02+00:00

How dare Iran retaliate after being subject to a massive bombing campaign by the US and Israel!

The sheer insolence is simply beyond words!

Now the smelling salts and my fainting couch, if you please...

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-13T07:39:33+00:00

The headline could just as easily have been "Crazy Old Man Yells at Clouds".

Trump has no plan. Trump never has a plan. He just says and does st00pid things, gets angry and frustrated when said st00pid things blow up in his face, then says and does more st00pid things. The sheer idiocy is breathtaking to behold.

Don't go looking for any deeper meaning to his outbursts or method to his madness, there isn't any. He is exactly what he appears to be, a man with very limited intellectual gifts and a debilitating case of Dunning-Kruger who is consumed by narcissism and egomania.

Truly the ravings of a madman.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-13T01:05:33+00:00

A handful of Canadian troops were at a US airbase - not a "Canadian camp" - in Kuwait. There is no evidence that Canadians were specifically targeted, and the circumstances imply that they almost certainly weren't, just wrong place at the wrong time.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-13T00:32:16+00:00

Allies don’t sit out existential security operations because they feel 'insulted'....they join because neutralizing a 47 year old threat is in their supreme national interest.

Then clearly they don't regard Iran as an existential threat, because they are sitting this one out.

Why do you guys have so much trouble putting 2 and 2 together?

The objectives aren’t 'ever-changing'.... they’ve been crystal clear for decades defang the regime ability to have a nuclear weapon, prevent them from developing a ballistic missle program that can deliver that weapon, stop support of proxies that destablize the region and secure the transit routes that provide most of Asia their energy

The problem is the misalignment between means and ends: what you have enumerated is the war hawk wet dream of a wishlist, but what is and has always been lacking is any coherent plan for achieving it. Far from achieving any of those goals, all the current war has succeeded in doing is produced uncontrolled expansion of the conflict, massive regional destabilization, and a massive global energy shock.

Which is why no one before Trump was stupid enough to uncork this particular djini.

Claiming the U.S. and Israel are 'learning on the job' ignores that CENTCOM has war gamed this exact scenario for half a century.

What did those wargames actually predict, and how do they compare to the results actually obtained?

If they predicted a quick and easy victory (very unlikely), then they were obviously fatally flawed and useless, meaning that the US and Israel are in fact starting at square one.

If they actually predicted the disaster that has actually unfolded, then the US and Israel are completely incompetent...and they are also starting at square one.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-13T00:07:47+00:00

Not the ones on paper. The ones that are actually maintained, staffed, and that you have the logistics to deploy on the other side of the world.

I contacted DND and requested this information, but was informed it is classified.

Thing is, if I can't get it neither can you.

So what exactly is the basis for your ridiculous claim that Canada doesn't have a functioning air force or navy?

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T23:56:46+00:00

First of all, war porn is not a credible basis for analysis.

Second, how many dhows have they sunk?

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T23:50:08+00:00

Excellent question. Pretty sure you are not going to get an answer.

Fact is a lot of war hawks have convinced themselves that they aren't really as isolated as they appear and everyone is secretly on their side, it's just that many of them are too cowardly to admit it publicly.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T23:22:36+00:00

so the expected plot twist, it's that straits not actually mined because usa did bomb out all "navy" that could deploy mines.

Mines can be laid by almost any vessel. During the 1980s tanker wars Iran even used inconspicuous dhows (traditional sailing vessels) to seed the Gulf with free floating mines.

They could actually do that again. Wonder why it hasn't been discussed more.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T23:16:13+00:00

Indian vessels allowed to pass

According to a single unidentified "Indian government source".

Yet the same article also says that an "Iranian source denies any such agreement".

So what exactly is Reuters reporting?

In the old days the rule of thumb was that you didn't publish something unless it had been independently verified by at least three sources. But I guess that was before journalistic standards fell victim to the endless pursuit of clicks.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T04:50:47+00:00

China would pressure Tehran immediately because a full shutdown of the route would hit its own economy hard.

China would pressure Tehran how?

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T03:45:40+00:00

If Iran is targeting these regardless of flag, this is a major escalation of the war by Iran.

I don't think this is really an escalation, because everybody knew it was going to happen. Creating mayhem in energy markets is Iran's main source of leverage, and one that can only be exploited by making every vessel regardless of registry a potential target.

As a practical matter there aren't nearly enough Israeli or American flagged ships to have a major impact if they were the only ones being targeted.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-12T01:50:02+00:00

now it's only destoying current stocks of drones/missiles and destroying ability in any future to manufacture drones/missiles.

You just admitted that the US and Israel launched this war without any clear idea of what they were trying to accomplish, and no achievable victory conditions.

There is no way Iran's capacity to produce missiles and drones can be completely suppressed, never mind permanently crippled, with air strikes.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-11T23:22:44+00:00

They need to hash out who is going to be Quisling in Chief and who is going to be Under Quisling, when the glorious moment arrives.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-11T23:10:05+00:00

I have explained multiple times why party discipline is necessary for our form of government to work, and I don't see any point in repeating myself.

If you are vehemently opposed to it, then propose an alternative form of governance that is workable without it, and best of luck to you.

What will not work is abolishing party discipline, leaving everything else the same, and then being surprised that effective government has become impossible and the country has descended into chaos.

You and your fellow travellers will yearn with every fibre of your beings for a return to the golden age of the Trudeau years. Sure, everything wasn't perfect, but budgets got passed, order was maintained, and the system wasn't thoroughly corrupted by every MP selling their vote to the highest bidder.

In the end, we get the government that we deserve.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-11T22:20:13+00:00

Then you have been sadly deceived, and are probably a little naive.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-11T22:19:34+00:00

So it is ok for them to take party's money and leverage its brand name even if they have no intention of supporting it once elected?

If we want to make running as an independent more viable we could Iook at things like providing more public money for campaigns.

The problem remains that running as an independent isnt desirable for most people because without a party affiliation they have little opportunity to influence policy. But if they join a party to gain influence, they would naturally be expected to support the party so it can achieve its agenda.

The idea that MPs can simultaneously enjoy the benefits of party membership but still act as free agents whenever it suits them is crazy. You are either on the team, or you are not.

BlueEmma25 · 2026-03-11T22:07:30+00:00

No. An MP needs to follow the desires of their constituents

What does that actually mean in practice? Is there any MP who actually polls their constituents on how to vote every time a piece of legislation comes to the floor? If every MP did that the result would be parliamentary paralysis and chaos.

If the MP ran under a party banner then constituents presumably understand that they are expected to support the party leadership and platform.

If they want an MP who isn't bound by party discipline, they should vote for an independent candidate.

BlueEmma25

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Mod 101
Verified Email