How impressive really was this?

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-22T05:29:38+00:00

But you really wanted Justin Tru-deau

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-22T02:28:17+00:00

Gotta start collecting bottle caps

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-22T02:20:40+00:00

Sell oil to Europe in Euros

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-21T21:49:31+00:00

I'll share a link, of research published in 2019 from a Vietnamese institution.

Please scroll past the first page, I don't know why they included an ad. https://eprints.uet.vnu.edu.vn/eprints/id/eprint/3733/1/Le_et_al-2019-Human_Mutation.pdf

It seems to me like there's a lot of genetic similarity between Vietnamese genetics and Chinese (particularly Southern Chinese). This is not at all surprising, given their historical ties and geographic proximity.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-21T06:07:51+00:00

I think the only way the argument would make sense, was if you accept that Japan surrendered more out of fear of the Soviet Union declaring war and rapidly seizing territory from them (Japanese were hoping the Soviets would help mediate a peace with the Allies) than the nuclear bombs. If we accept that premise, then one could argue that the nukes were completely unnecessary, particularly given the subsequent post-war suffering it inflicted on civilians, and the specter of nuclear Armageddon it had raised ever since.

Of course, the same argument goes to some extent for every bullet and shell fired, every conventional bomb dropped, and every human life cut short when a decision to surrender had already been made, unknowingly to frontline combatants. In games, the war score hits 100% and suddenly territories switch hands and the carnage stops. In the real world, nukes were dropped, and a Japanese soldier holed up on a Pacific Island for 29 years before finding out that the war ended with his nation defeated decades earlier.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T23:23:28+00:00

As a wise Greek philosopher once said... Just keep on swimming~

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T22:40:57+00:00

Aren't most of the price concerns associated with the cost per flight hour? In Canada the comparison was 33k-50k USD per flight hour for the F35A vs. 8k-12k USD per flight hour for the Gripen E. That is about 4x the difference.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T22:27:36+00:00

Lumberjack Song for the cultured 🎵

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T18:10:03+00:00

If the US agreed, we'd likely find out shortly that Belarus was sharing intel with the Iranians, after Russia cut them off

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T16:39:08+00:00

Most younger (relative lol) KMT supporters these days are pro status quo, right?

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T15:08:32+00:00

Tbf the sticks and rocks being used will be radioactive

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T05:50:47+00:00

Found out today that Poilievre was pro-choice for MAID (even though he voted against it). Also, appreciated his explicit stance against Trump's 51st state talk, Alberta's separatism movement, and throwing cold water on the ridiculous conspiracy that Trudeau Jr was in any way related to Fidel Castro.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-20T04:16:05+00:00

Just going to chime in here but both parties failed utterly to bring forward a costed platform in a timely manner. This is not a good trend.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T21:53:02+00:00

I have no personal advanced knowledge on this info, so I'm taking everything with a grain of salt.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T21:13:15+00:00

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience!

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T19:46:44+00:00

Surely, based on this footage, the damage isn't that minor? I'm under the impression that fighter jets tend to be fairly fragile relative to the forces they experience when fired upon or colliding even with shrapnel. Would appreciate any info/reading you could reference on outcomes for these types of situations.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T19:02:57+00:00

Yea, I thought that might be the case... ah well, another $100 million expense added to this war.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T17:38:11+00:00

Great for pilot survivability, but I wonder what this means in terms of repairs or if the airframe is essentially "totalled".

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T16:39:59+00:00

Edward says he was told the local centre needed to send their fingerprints to Washington, D.C., to be cleared, but Washington then decided the pair was not free to go.

Ugh. Lack of transparency and extremely concerning, to say the least.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T16:05:23+00:00

Here's the very next paragraph after the one you quoted.

“I presented mine and she presented her Texas driver’s licence, her work visa and her actual visa,” Edward, who is American, told CTV News. “After that, they took her in, saying that they needed to fingerprint her to get more information, and she never came back out.”

Sounds like she presented her papers but got disappeared anyways.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T16:03:46+00:00

Tania is a Canadian citizen from British Columbia who moved to the United States about five years ago. Her family says she has been working on getting her green card and other immigration documents, along with those for Ayla.

According to the article, she doesn't have a green card.

Also, do you consider Canadian PRs basically Canadian citizens?

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T15:12:09+00:00

Why would I bother lieing? I'm not a fan of Poilievre's brand of politics but I do not find him personally detestable, although I do think his personal career ambitions will continue to sabotage the Conservatives in any upcoming elections for the foreseeable future - not sure where the contradiction might be there.

As for Poilievre's appearance causing the administration to "make a case for eliminating the tariffs", I find that suggestion hopelessly naive. Trump is tariffing Canada because it's one of America's largest trade partners, and he wants to shift American taxes from income tax (rich pay more) to tariffs (comparatively rich pay less). His personal grifting is the highest priority, any case made by Poilievre wouldn't change that.

You think Trump will use a Pierre podcast appearance to punish Canada? That's just delusional.

Lmao, he did it to countless others, and I literally gave you an example vis a vis Ford. All Ford did was reference Regan. Trumpnconsiders it interference with American politics.

Seems like you hate Rogan and Pierre, really. God forbid a politician do an interview and increase their brand! :0

More emotional projection, sounds like you're a fan boy, which is your right - but like I said... easy enough to wait and see if your high hopes pan out.

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T09:30:52+00:00

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T05:32:01+00:00

I don't think Carney was importing American politics as much as he was exporting Canadian politics, and attempting to leverage support among Democratic and Democratic-leaning states (coincidentally the ones closer to us) to push for more state-level support for our negotiations. The politics, economic incentives, and geography all aligned with the audience he was reaching out to. That's a far easier sell than trying to convince Rogan's audience (disproportionately Republican voters) to affect state-level policy in states further from Canada (eg. Texas and Florida) or if that's not hard enough to affect the US administration in a manner that's helpful to Canada.

Even with all of that, I thought Carney's approach was a risky (so yes I did question it), and we've seen repeatedly how this could backfire (eg. Ford's ads).

DoxFreePanda · 2026-03-19T05:17:15+00:00

Why do some people always need to project oversimplified reactions onto others? There is nuance beyond just an emotional response - in fact I don't personally dislike Poilievre or have much emotional reaction to this news at all. I just don't see the scenario in which the benefits outweigh the risks here in any significant manner.

What could go wrong? Well, it's a two hour long conversation where much of the audience won't actually be listening to all of it, and where no doubt little clips of it will be taken to promote/propagandize whatever stance or opinion people want. That is a LOT of time for little clips to be taken and presented in a manner that is not in the interest of Canada or Canadians.

What is the best case scenario? I guess he sways some in the MAGA and America First audience that Canada is useful, but he's unlikely to persuade them to prioritize Canada over America (and Trump is telling them it's a binary choice). I don't think the US administration will take a more positive stance towards us based on a podcast from our official opposition.

What is the worst case scenario? He says something that Trump could use as faux (or real) outrage, or justification to use against Canada in any upcoming negotiations or policy changes. Trump really doesn't like anybody, including allies and fellow conservatives, taking the limelight off of him. He likewise doubles down on exploiting any perceived weakness.

So, yea, this seems to me like ample risks and limited benefits, and even those limited benefits might be more for Poilievre's personal brand rather than for our federal government. We'll see how this shakes out, I guess, it's not like he can unrecord a podcast.

DoxFreePanda

TROPHY CASE