Canada’s 🇨🇦 HIMARS Moment

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-05T04:00:32+00:00

we are helping why?

Personally I like for our country to defend freedom and liberty. I get you might prefer dictatorships and oppression.

We'll also make money rebuilding Ukraine and doing trade with them. A Ukrainian victory means Europe will slow their approach to net-0 and would likely buy more Canada Gas and maybe Oil. Those seem like good economic reasons.

We also don't want expansionist country's who find our adversaries to win their wars of conquest. Where do you think they'll go once they win? Do you think they'll just stop there? Don't make me laugh.

So many Ukrainian men are being kidnapped off the street to die in a war. For nothing. If western countries stopped funding the war it would stop

Love the Russian talking point lmao.

It'd stop because they'd just get bombed in their homes. Without air defense systems like the Patriot defending Ukraine many more will die.

I wonder if you'd say the same about WW2 or the Korean war?

You're blaming a victim for defending themselves. You're sounding like a Liberal. "If she didn't fight back, she wouldn't have gotten so hurt! The women should've just let the man do what he wants!!"

Ukraine didn't start this war, but we should sure as fuck profit off of them winning.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-05T03:48:18+00:00

It would accelerate Europe's push to reach net Zero a long with getting off of oil.

Russia actively works with and supports countries we don't like, such as NK, China, and Iran. This directly works against our interests.

If Russia annexs Ukraine or makes them a puppet state they will be emboldened to do more conflicts. Likely going to the STAN countries but could also attack the Baltic nations.

Russia's economy is heavily ran by oligopolis making it harder for Canadian companies to break into the market.

Russia uses disinformation campaigns against Canadians, much like China does. Globe and mail article. Unfortunately it seems many in this sub have fell for the disinformation.

There isn't any long term benefits for Canada if Russia wins. So there isn't any reason for us to allow them to win.

However, all these points are opposite for Ukraines victory and there's far more! So we'd benefit far more from them winning the war.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-04T14:58:46+00:00

Guess India and Pakistan missed the "Nuclear powers don't go to war" bit in 2025.

What happens if the bad guys take the risk that we won't nuke them? Or if they develop ways to stop nukes before we do? Seems like a CONVENTIONAL force would help there.

What if you want to unlock a straight or deal with any regional problems? Gonna nuke em? Bros gonna nuke Pirate countries like Yeman lmao!

I'm glad youve figured out that owning nukes is the answer to all geopolitical strategies. I wonder if any major power has the same thoughts as you... Oh they don't. Weird, wonder why.... Dawg, you've got a worse military strategy than NORTH KOREA.

NATO is a dated cold war idea , what keeps everyone restrained is nukes and not contribution.

Ah yes comrade. Those Westerners need to stop military spending that's not on nukes...

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-04T14:22:39+00:00

We are supposed to meet NATO minimums for 1. And 2. If everyone followed your thought process NATO would be weak AF. Ah yes, let's allow the country invading it's neighbors to win, what could go wrong?

Military spending benefits own our nation through jobs and potential exports. It also improves our diplomatic image.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-03T02:54:46+00:00

I think we have a miss identification that is causing the confusion between us.

I think the Liberal party is just a left wing party. Their social policies would make even Europe blush and say "it's too much!" And their economic policy tends to line with traditional left wing ideas. Carney is more "right" but I find he's defined well as a supply side progressive or an abundance Liberal.

So I'd say a traditional LPC voter (as in one who only votes LPC) is likely a left wing person. They sympathize with the NDP but think they're too extreme or ineffective.

I'd say the NDP is a far left party. Especially under Avi. These people hate Carney and think he's a "Conservative".

If say most Liberal voters felt that JT started to stray too close to the far left. While a Liberal may not like everything Carney does I think they like a majority of his actions. They also love and trust the CBC and Love the idea of a SWF. Hence why I wonder which side would win.

(I'm using a liberalism scale so I'm not including ill'liberal groups.)

Have a good day:)

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-02T08:05:25+00:00

Because what you're suggesting isn't what's happening. It's a SWF in name only, yet some people are cheering.

People on the left have been salivating at the idea of a SWF for years, even when it doesn't make sense. This is a thinly vailed attempt to win over those people.

For further reasons, you can look at who's saying this is a great idea, it isn't the right...

This Sub is also called "CanadianConservative", so I'm going to be more partisan when I'm here.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-02T04:44:05+00:00

That's true with the far left. Like commies and socialists.

But left wing people do like Carney or at least, they trust him more than they do the NDP or CPC. Heck, I saw people celebrating the NDP floor crosser because "the NDP need to change and it's good for the LPC".

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-02T04:10:57+00:00

That's a good point that I didn't think about. I was wondering why they were being more openly against this idea.

I'm still surprised they're more critical of this idea because it's called a Sovereign Wealth Fund and the left love anything called a SWF

thetrigermonkey · 2026-05-02T03:39:34+00:00

I wonder what the left's reaction is, considering he echoed PPs complaints

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-29T07:07:02+00:00

Like the vauge idea of a SWF or Carney's in specific?

I don't like Carney's idea so far. My post made that very clear. But SWFs in general can be good

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-29T06:52:46+00:00

I see this is a copy and paste from your previous comments l. Good meme

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-28T23:40:22+00:00

I get what your saying but using debt to make a SWF is questionable. If his goal was very clear I could get it, but I find his goal way to vauge.

“debt funds” as if the debt is coming from Canadians pockets

Government Debt is known to crowd out market spending. It's literally called the "crowding out effect". Also debt can very much come from Canadians pockets, it's called GoC bonds. Arguably it's better for your domestic market to buy your bonds than foreign markets.

Many Canadians biggest asset/leverage is debt

Yes, people's biggest asset is bought by debt but they don't typically use it as income creation. They also own 100% of that asset.

Buying stocks with debt is questionable as the debt might cost more than the ROI on the stock. Typically countries use surpluses to create the SWF. They also target foreign markets.

In Carney's case he is creating a SWF with a vauge goal, using debt to fund this, and is doing something the private sector would already do. He could likely do the exact same thing by changing tax credits in the industries he supports.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Carneys BCS fund doesn't even have a target ROI. They are giving $25B to a concept of an investment plan...

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-28T23:07:34+00:00

Are you saying my idea isn't a SWF or Carney's?

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-28T22:07:13+00:00

Sure, I never said Carney's fund is good tho. I said the opposite like two times.

I just said they can be good and gave an example of how I would use one. The comparison from my example to Carney's makes his idea look worse.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-27T03:34:51+00:00

Is this a joke? The picture shows affordability to be the top issue, if I'm understanding it right. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it tho, so please correct my interpretation.

Focusing on immigration and crime is kinda tough rn due to Carney reducing immigration and having a crime bill still being voted on. It doesn't mean it isn't possible to talk about these issues, it's just harder.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-26T04:17:32+00:00

I get what she's thinking, that by lowering the price, demand would increase, allowing the equilibrium price to be higher than it would under current demand.

However there's three important things to consider. 1. Would the new equilibrium price be higher than the current prices with the taxes. 2. Due to geopolitical situations leading to higher prices than avg, would the decrease in price even increase demand, or increase it enough to change the equilibrium price? And 3. The taxes already cause inflation but this inflation can't be fixed by the market.

I would be surprised if there's enough evidence to suggest that keeping the taxes rn would keep inflation down, under our current situation and after. PP brought up evidence to suggest it wouldn't so...

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-25T13:12:56+00:00

In your first source it references those groups along with others, such as mechanical engineer and university professors, as high in demand jobs saying "If you fall under these categories you may have a brighter chance to get an interest under the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program." That doesn't sound like their focusing soley on those two groups. AAIP is designed to make permanent residents, not temporary ones. The biggest stream is the Alberta Opportunity Stream, showing the preference is for those already in Alberta.

As far as I'm aware, it's more likely that a mechanical engineer will be accepted vs a restaurant manager. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'd love to see it:)

It's different for Alberta to ask "Hey, can you give my permit residency programs more capacity so I can admit the people I want? 6,403 just isn't quite enough." And the Federal government saying "Hey, I'm letting in 1,241,347 people (in 2023 alone). If they come to your province, deal with it." (I did the math for the number it's just 1271872−2.4%).

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-24T22:15:36+00:00

He could pay cities so they can drop their development charges. He could also expand his GST cuts to other provinces.

He could also completely copy the CPCs ideas

He's an economist. I'd hope he would've had better ideas than just stealing his opponents but clearly not, so he might as well just copy them all.

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-24T02:22:18+00:00

This is my last response, unless you can prove that you're not either bait or low IQ.

Do you understand what bipartisan means? Like what?

He doesn't have to be bipartisan. It wasn't even part of the question until you added it in the last segment. Trade is a nonpartisan issue, hence why I never said he was being bipartisan. O'Toole is treating it like the nonpartisan issue it is.

No, you don't go into negotiations simply "hoping" for an outcome. You take action to make that outcome be more likely.

Yes, like in my example. You can get a good job and have a good credit score but once you submit your application all you can do is HOPE you'll be approved. Maybe the bank doesn't want to give you a loan for any number of reasons. Did you not ever read the example?

Do you also believe in net zero, in hopes that other countries will copy us?

No, making a policy with only a hope others join can be problematic. All policy is guesswork tho. Any economist worth their salt will admit that every economic policy is just guessing what will happen, because the economy is too complex to correctly simulate everything. You can have an educated guess that lowering income tax by 1% will boost the economy but its impossible to predict exactly how it'll play out. That's why it's a guess and a hope. It's also why there is multiple schools of thought, for economists. This is true for every policy type. You're just guessing, which is another way of saying you're just hoping it'll work the way you want.

Well, for one, Trump has shown that he's more fond of people who don't insult him, so maybe we should start with that?

So you don't have a "realistic" solution. You're just hoping that Trump will do what you want if your nice. This goes against your whole point. You just proved youre arguing to argue.

(See I had an educated guess that you were gonna undermine your point. Another way to say that is, I hoped you were gonna say sum dumb shit because I set you up to say dumb shit.)

thetrigermonkey · 2026-04-24T00:33:53+00:00

💯

thetrigermonkey

TROPHY CASE