• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

One of the things the NDP and LPC do like is "soft power", and both have certainly spent enough time stroking themselves over how much of it they think Canada wields.

It will be greatly satisfying if their incessant vote-buying has squeezed out our ability to pay for enough credible "hard power" to prevent others from essentially zeroing out the value of our "soft power" by ignoring/disinviting us.
 
One of the things the NDP and LPC do like is "soft power", and both have certainly spent enough time stroking themselves over how much of it they think Canada wields.

It will be greatly satisfying if their incessant vote-buying has squeezed out our ability to pay for enough credible "hard power" to prevent others from essentially zeroing out the value of our "soft power" by ignoring/disinviting us.
Although a mix is needed, looks like the calculus was off on soft:hard for Team Red these rounds :(
 
And if we do meet our commitments, the (LPC's socialist's paradise) budget will be in for a rough ride ;)


For Canada to meet the target, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Ottawa would need to spend an additional $14.5 billion on annual defence spending in 2024/25. This would increase next year’s deficit by 41.4 per cent while adding more debt and driving up debt interest costs.

Clearly, there’s no way for Canada to meet its NATO spending commitment without blowing through any sense of a deficit or debt target. Put differently, the federal government is unable to meet the demands of its allies without seriously weakening its fiscal position unless it’s finally willing to prioritize such spending over other currently favoured federal initiatives and programs.

When it comes to meeting our international obligations for military spending, poor management of federal finances and suspect prioritization of spending have put Canada between a rock and a hard place.

Sell gas. Sell oil. Sell coal, lumber, wheat, lentils, barley, cattle, hogs.

Make money. Profit.
 
From today's Globe and Mail:
-----

U.S. plans to press Canada, other NATO allies at summit to meet 2% spending target​


The Biden administration is warning Canada and other NATO countries that are failing to pay their fair share in military spending to prepare for a dressing down at the alliance’s summit in Washington this week.

Michael Carpenter, a White House national-security official, said Monday that alliance members will hold countries’ “feet to the fire” if they have not yet fulfilled their decade-old pledge to spend 2 per cent of GDP on the military.

Another U.S. diplomatic official said there has been debate in the administration over how aggressively President Joe Biden should press the issue with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Part of the discussion is whether to shame Canada publicly or keep it private, the source said.

The Globe and Mail is not identifying the source who was not authorized to speak on behalf of the U.S. government.

Canada has already been told in closed-door meetings that the U.S. government wants clarity on its defence-spending plans and a stronger commitment to hit the 2-per-cent target, said a Canadian industry source with knowledge of the talks. The Globe is not identifying the source who was not allowed to share details of the private discussions.

The 75th anniversary summit, which will bring together leaders of the 32 alliance members starting Tuesday, is taking place at a time of peril for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Members are bracing themselves for the possible return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency. Mr. Trump has repeatedly railed against NATO members who don’t meet the spending threshold and threatened not to defend them if they are attacked. There is also mounting concern that Mr. Biden, 81, is suffering from age-related decline, making it more likely he will lose to Mr. Trump.

Asked about Canada’s lack of a plan to keep its 2-per-cent promise, Mr. Carpenter, senior director for Europe at the U.S. National Security Council, told a media briefing that countries that have reached the target will be cajoling others until they fall into line.

Out of 32 NATO members, 18 are expected to meet the 2-per-cent threshold this year.

“There will be a lot of allies holding each others’ feet to the fire in terms of defence-spending commitments,” he said. “I expect that that pressure on allies that are not at the 2-per-cent threshold to continue to be vocalized so that we have equitable burden-sharing.”


Mr. Carpenter said U.S. officials “hope to see a credible plan at some point” for Canada meeting its promises. He also praised Ottawa for being “very forward-leaning in terms of its support for Ukraine” against Russia’s invasion.

In a defence strategy released in April by Defence Minister Bill Blair, the federal government said it plans to increase spending to 1.76 per cent of GDP by 2030, from 1.33 per cent, but does not indicate how or when it will reach 2 per cent. The U.S., by comparison, spent 3.49 per cent of its GDP last year on defence, more than US$900-billion.

The Canadian government sought to play down the possibility of friction ahead of the meetings.

Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s ambassador in Washington, said the U.S. is “very appreciative” of Ottawa’s commitment to Ukraine and of its role in protecting the Arctic through the NORAD missile defence system. Still, she said, Washington is “looking for every country to step up as much as they can” when it comes to military spending.

“I am not saying that the pressure that you recognize isn’t there. It is. But it is also coupled with a strong recognition that Canada is a steadfast ally in all respects,” Ms. Hillman told reporters in Washington on Monday.

A senior Canadian official said talk of tension between the U.S. and Canada over the 2-per-cent threshold is overblown. During Mr. Biden’s tête-à-tête with Mr. Trudeau in Ottawa last year, it didn’t even come up, the official said. The Globe is not naming the official because the discussions were confidential.

Canada is already under mounting pressure to increase defence spending. In May, 23 U.S. senators, including both Republicans and Democrats, told Mr. Trudeau they were “concerned and profoundly disappointed” about his lack of a path to 2 per cent.

The Business Council of Canada has also publicly demanded that Ottawa step up its game. John Dickerman, the head of the lobby’s Washington office, said Canada’s lagging on defence spending could also hurt its trade with the U.S.

“We are very concerned that if Canada is not seen as a reliable ally on defence and national security, that could peter into discussions on economic security,” he said, citing U.S. attempts to move supply chains out of China as an example of the way Washington now ties trade and security together.

In recent months, U.S. officials have taken different tacks with Ottawa.

Julianne Smith, Mr. Biden’s ambassador to NATO, used a CTV interview to single out Canada as the only NATO country without a concrete plan for reaching the 2-per-cent target. The U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, has been more conciliatory, saying that spending benchmark is not the only metric by which the country is judged.

Mr. Trudeau’s government, for its part, has also sent mixed messages since its defence plan received a lacklustre response.

Mr. Blair subsequently said that the spending levels in it were only minimums and uncosted military procurements might put Canada over 2 per cent. But Treasury Board President Anita Anand dismissed the need to further increase defence spending, in part because the military doesn’t have the procurement expertise required to spend the money faster.

Mr. Trudeau arrived in Washington on Monday for meetings with U.S. legislators and business leaders ahead of the summit.

Among others, he sat down with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the two top congressional Democratic leaders, as well as the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. Ms. Hillman said Mr. Trudeau wanted a meeting with House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, an ally of Mr. Trump’s, but he “wasn’t available.”

On Monday evening, Mr. Trudeau attended a reception at the Canadian embassy that included at least three of Mr. Biden’s cabinet members, Alejandro Mayorkas, Xavier Becerra and Katherine Tai, as well as White House officials Shalanda Young and Jon Finer.
-----
Let's see how this message is received ... including by Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives.
 
Noooooot a good look for Team Red ....
... with the expected political zinger from Team Blue :)
View attachment 86358

Meanwhile, a Stampede sing along...

The Pleb 🇨🇦 Reporter on X: "Pierre Poilievre rally breaks out into the most epic O CANADA ever This is the real Canada coming back to life after 9 years of WOKE destruction The left absolutely fears this https://t.co/cgTdz1huqS" / X (twitter.com)
 
Maybe not fear but they felt offended by it and tinkered with it.

trudeau changes the national anthem - Google Search
I thought it sounded weird the first few times but considering we (Canadians) don’t have a tradition of belting out the anthem normally (unlike, say, the Portuguese), I don’t think about it much anymore.

That person that @daftandbarmy quoted is a right wing shit poster. I wouldn't take much that they say to heart.
Agreed. I chuckled at the hyperbolic language though.
 
It was pretty cool during the NHL playoffs watching the Oilers Fans absolutely killing it with O Canada during the home games in Edmonton.
 
I can see the left taking issue with Canadians being proud of being Canadian and not hating themselves for colonialism and perceived systemic racism under every rock.
I will chalk your comment up to hyperbole, but I think the Left has merit in staring some of the uglier sides of nationalism in the face, especially those that are marginalized by it.

In practice, I think their approach is idiotic. To reconcile is to admit wrong when applicable (on both sides), agree to resolution, and move the fuck on with it. To wear a hair shirt for actions taken 150 years ago is not what anyone affected still is asking for.

In all cases of "colonialism or nationalism" neither side, left or right, wants to move forward because they lose their leverage. The Right screams "war on Canada and patriotism.. Red and White... rah!" while the Left screams "Dead Person # 3 is a horrible person because I choose to judge them based on 21st Century Standards..."

All while those truly affected by systemic injustice or racism continue to deal with a broken system neither side has bothered to fix.
 
I will chalk your comment up to hyperbole, but I think the Left has merit in staring some of the uglier sides of nationalism in the face, especially those that are marginalized by it.

In practice, I think their approach is idiotic. To reconcile is to admit wrong when applicable (on both sides), agree to resolution, and move the fuck on with it. To wear a hair shirt for actions taken 150 years ago is not what anyone affected still is asking for.

In all cases of "colonialism or nationalism" neither side, left or right, wants to move forward because they lose their leverage. The Right screams "war on Canada and patriotism.. Red and White... rah!" while the Left screams "Dead Person # 3 is a horrible person because I choose to judge them based on 21st Century Standards..."

All while those truly affected by systemic injustice or racism continue to deal with a broken system neither side has bothered to fix.

Dude... loads of 'microagressions' there... ;)

EDUCATION IS NOT MERELY NEGLECTED IN MANY OF OUR SCHOOLS, BUT IS REPLACED TO A GREAT EXTENT BY IDEOLOGICAL INDOCTRINATION.

Microaggression: This word is defined by activists as an interaction between people of different races, cultures, or genders in which a member of a “victim group” is subjected to subtle but powerful attack — ones the attacker is unaware he or she is carrying out. Legitimizing the concept of “microaggressions” serves several important political goals for radical activists: It puts everyone in the “oppressor” racial and gender categories on the defensive, since you can be guilty of “aggression” based entirely on someone else’s say-so. And crucially, encouraging kids to think in terms of “microaggressions” encourages them to be emotionally fragile, to embrace a grievance mindset, and to think of themselves as either oppressors or victims. These are all important political-psychological goals of woke activists.

 
but I think the Left has merit in staring some of the uglier sides of nationalism in the face, especially those that are marginalized by it.
I don't see being proud of being Canadian, and proud of our Canadian heritage, as nationalism in the pejorative sense of the word. Can you expand on what some of the uglier sides of nationalism you mean? Who is being marginalized by me being proud of being Canadian?

We hear about colonialism non-stop. It's obnoxious and just the du jour thing to complain about.
 
Back
Top