sunfur82

He has to be. I can't think of any other reason why he'd be trying to hard to antagonize and disrespect long-time allies, while praising Russia. He then made that ridiculous statement that Ukraine started the war, when Russia was the one who invaded them, and also said that Zelensky should be 'nicer' to Putin. But Putin, who ordered the attack that caused who knows how many deaths, shouldn't be 'nicer'?

There was also the first term, where Trump fired the FBI director over an investigation into Russia, and then told Russia that he fired 'that nut job'. What kind of message does that send to their own people? Not just that he fired the director, but that he bragged about it to the people he was investigating.

I honestly think most of the GOP knows, but they're too embarrassed to admit it. Or maybe it's just pride, they think it's beneath them to be held accountable to anyone.

Feel the same way. He basically has the US Treasury now, and can do whatever he wants with his DOGE, I doubt he cares about Tesla.

I remember before the purchase was made, I was really hoping the government would purchase the Swedish Saab Gripen. I think it was one of the finalists for consideration (that's what I remembered from a few news casts at the time, but not sure if it was an actual finalist, or just someone saying they thought it would be a good option.)

The main reason for me thinking we should have gone with the Saab, was that I trusted buying from Sweden more than the US. I can see the US putting some systems in place that could give them control or some way to negatively affect the F-35s. I remember someone saying that countries don't have friends, only interests, but I'd still trust Sweden more than the US to not betray us in some way.

Agree 100%. That's their soft power, trying to heavily influence people with their entertainment to see things through their values, or lack thereof. I know as a kid growing up, it was basically all US shows, but I was too young to make that distinction between US and Canadian content. I think there should be an investment to make and distribute more Canadian content, so we're not constantly being bombarded with US content.

I was thinking the same thing. I always thought one of the main reasons for the 100% tariffs was to be in line with what the US wanted. But with things being the way they are, I think we should open the door for Chinese EVs. If it benefits Canada, we should do it. I'm not well versed on the Chinese EVs, but from some of the documentaries I've seen, the quality is comparable to the US models, if not better, due to the features that they pack into their base models. I know that there are concerns about eavesdropping and data collection, but isn't that a risk with the US too? And especially the way the US is now, I'd trust them even less. Because it goes beyond the data collection, it goes to their intention of annexation.

I'd rather we open the door to Chinese EVs, or any other competitors, just so our trade is more diversified. (I'm not familiar with the infrastructure investments that would be required for Chinese EVs, or policy adjustments, I just think it's something that should be seriously explored and implemented, just so we're not so dependent on the US alone).

Yeah, I read a take where they said it's more about inflaming people than actually informing them. And I can see it more and more, it's all about the 2-3 word slogans. It's gotten to the point where, if the slogan or message is too long to fit on a bumper sticker, people will just tune it out.

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out, especially the Humanist Report.

I agree too. its frustrating, because on one hand, it gets exhausting listening to all the false information they're putting out, or just outright lies, but on the other hand, it's important to keep informed and know what they're doing. I guess in the end, it's really just a tactic; tell as many lies as possible, because the other side won't have the time, energy and resources to dispute and rebut all of them. So the lies not being challenged will be believed to be true. And that side will keep piling on the lies, because they know the other side can't refute all of them.

I remember in one of the US debates, one side was telling lies and saying things that were objectively, factually false, and they weren't being called out by it by the moderator. Later on, one of the analysts on another network said that the problem was, if the moderator keeps fact checking the person who's always lying, it looks like they're picking on them and favouring the other side. When someone pointed out that was because the other side wasn't lying, or lying to the same degree, the analyst said it didn't matter; what mattered was the perception.

CBC is really the only source I follow and trust, but I'm not sure what other sources to go to. I want to be more informed, but don't know what other sources to go to.