Political Posts

[LC]

Well, that sounds ridiculous and I'd be livid as well.

 

In the workplace I really don't see any of the nonsense like you describe. Perhaps HR takes care of it, I don't know. But I work in a math heavy industry, it is currently dominated by Asians and Indians. Second largest groups would be Russians and Americans. 

[Parsad]

8 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I don’t think India is really part of the new Axis (Iran, Russia, China, North Korea). Modi just likes to keep his options open and does not to get bullied by Trump. I think he also knows that Xi Xinping is not the good guy. Russias world view is around destruction of the current world order while Xi Xinping goal is to create a new one under Chinese hegemony.

 

I think the only thing they have in common is that they want to reduce the US and the Wests power.

 

+1!  And Trump is helping facilitate that!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, TB said:

 

while hate crime against one nationality is increasing in Canada

 

https://immigrationnewscanada.ca/indians-in-canada-face-surge-in-hate/

 

 

That article is factually not accurate on a number of fronts:

 

• What happens on X is very different than what happens in the actual community...that huge increase in hate crime is not accurate.
• I live in Surrey, which is even bigger than Brampton in terms of Indian concentration...hate crimes are not that higher here than past years.
• There has been very high profile extortion cases across Canada by a specific criminal group (The Bishnoi Group) from India that are targeting Indian business owners...but that is about as prevalent as the existing gang violence across the country.
• The general consensus view in Canada on housing pricing in overpriced cities is not related to immigration as much as it is speculators buying multiple properties, foreign buyers with second homes, local buyers buying multiple homes to use as short-term AirBNB's rather than for local long-term rentals.
• No city in Canada is reducing Indian festivities...Vaisakhi parade in Surrey was as big as ever in 2025 and I have not seen a single woman not wear a bindi because she's fearful of racial attacks.

Does this look like a city that is fearful and threatening to the Indian community?!

 

https://www.surreyvaisakhiparade.com/

 

My mother and aunt went to a temple this evening for a funeral prayer of a family friend...they dressed in saris and had their tika on...no problem.  They often go all over Vancouver to shop, eat out, visit friends and family...they've almost never run into any sort of racial slur or attack in well over 30 years.  The racial prejudice was ten times greater in the 1970's and since has declined each decade as the population has become more diverse.

 

My sister-in-law and her family are immigrant Sikhs.  My family are Hindus from Fiji.  We have thousands of friends and family of incredible diversity...few have encountered racial discrimination and it is far better than 30 or 50 years ago! 

 

My brother is profiled more when he goes through U.S. customs than any sort of racial discrimination in Canada.  He gets pulled aside 50% of the time at U.S. customs.  Cheers!

 

 

[changegonnacome]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I don’t think India is really part of the new Axis (Iran, Russia, China, North Korea). Modi just likes to keep his options open and does not to get bullied by Trump.

 

For sure it isnt....but on a continuum of alliances India has been moved towards the Axis centre of gravity even slightly. Its simply poor international relations & security policy to take a country of such consequence and growing consequence and do anything to push them towards your adversaries in even slight ways (for no discernible outcome).

 

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think the only thing they have in common is that they want to reduce the US and the Wests power.

 

You bet......the international system for countries is a constant jockeying to increase your relative power within it...sometimes alone, sometimes as part of alliance......I cant think of a President in my lifetime or since the new world order came into being in 1945 that has done more to diminish the US's relative power within that system than Trump. The European's are running off on their own now and while potentially still dependent on us for a long time their relative dependence will diminish in time as they build out their own strategic autonomy....with that strategic autonomy expect a greater divergence between their view of the world and ours.....Japan, South Korea, Australia.....the alliance structure we rely on to remain the 800ilb gorilla in the world with all the benefits that entails is being proactively diminished.

 

Why? Idealogical for sure but also make no mistake about its because we are slowly going broke and US politicians (incl. Democrats & Republicans) don't have the balls to raise domestic taxes and cut spending as they should....so Trump is selling the US's family jewels to pay for day to day expenses....his liquidation of the US's untapped international leverage.....is like burning the furniture to stay warm in winter.....it works one time but has severe long term consequences.

 

[73 Reds]

14 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I didn’t say that, I said the issues are not solved. FWIW, we are now at war with Iran, which I think will be nuclear armed within a few years likely with help from Russia and/or North Korea.

 

The meeting in Tianjin eye opening in terms of the Axis (Russia, Iran, North Korea etc)  was on full display there. The foreign policy disaster with India aside. I think Trump was the catalyst for this meeting as none of the above like to be pushed around and China does try to play their cards as a predicable power in contrast to Trump.

"Solved"?   What exactly does that mean?  IMO it means removing an immediate threat.  We can deal with future threats later and as they arise.  Maybe you would prefer that Iran has nuclear capability now.  What is your point?   

[Spekulatius]

We are playing offense now:

FWIW, renaming every institution is straight from the dictators handbook.

[cubsfan]

9 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

We are playing offense now:

FWIW, renaming every institution is straight from the dictators handbook.

 

No reason to mess around with gangs killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

You can be sure they will get the message - just like the Iranians did.

[Spekulatius]

Trade deal with Japan not settled apparently.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/japan-says-us-trade-deal-073022503.html

 

No surprise as Trump keeps adding new tariffs (Pharma, semiconductors ) in addition to existing country based frameworks. Pharma is huge for Europe so there will be similar issues there.

[whiskybravo]

Just floating an idea here.  Please read this as a mental exercise.

 

In light of the recent China-Russia meeting in Tianjin and the U.S.’s increasingly confrontational posture globally, are we whether by design or drift, moving toward a Fortress North America model?

 

We are seeing attempts at reindustrialization and reshoring, strained alliances, tougher borders, inward-focused energy policy, and pullbacks from global security guarantees and international institutions

 

At the same time, the rise of China now appears inevitable, and global influence is becoming more diffuse and multipolar. Could a Fortress North America strategy actually be the most rational response?

 

Maybe it’s less about isolationism and more about strategic consolidation; defending the continent, securing critical resources, and avoiding overextension in an increasingly unstable world.

 

If so, what might that look like in practice? A hardened continental defense perimeter? A North American economic bloc with tighter controls? An exit from global policing?

 

Not saying it’s good or bad,  just wondering if the path we’re already on might be the least bad option in a world where primacy is no longer sustainable.

[cubsfan]

7 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Just floating an idea here.  Please read this as a mental exercise.

 

In light of the recent China-Russia meeting in Tianjin and the U.S.’s increasingly confrontational posture globally, are we whether by design or drift, moving toward a Fortress North America model?

 

We are seeing attempts at reindustrialization and reshoring, strained alliances, tougher borders, inward-focused energy policy, and pullbacks from global security guarantees and international institutions

 

At the same time, the rise of China now appears inevitable, and global influence is becoming more diffuse and multipolar. Could a Fortress North America strategy actually be the most rational response?

 

Maybe it’s less about isolationism and more about strategic consolidation; defending the continent, securing critical resources, and avoiding overextension in an increasingly unstable world.

 

If so, what might that look like in practice? A hardened continental defense perimeter? A North American economic bloc with tighter controls? An exit from global policing?

 

Not saying it’s good or bad,  just wondering if the path we’re already on might be the least bad option in a world where primacy is no longer sustainable.

 

This is a great question!

 

The Trump movement is absolutely about the common man in America first, with strong foreign policy of little interference. We will be no greater friend or enemy, and only initiate global action when it serves our interests. No more nation building.

Instead of pour trillions into global actions - that investment is destined to imporve the future and lives of our citizens.

[whiskybravo]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

This is a great question!

 

The Trump movement is absolutely about the common man in America first, with strong foreign policy of little interference. We will be no greater friend or enemy, and only initiate global action when it serves our interests. No more nation building.

Instead of pour trillions into global actions - that investment is destined to imporve the future and lives of our citizens.

Yes, I m not talking about full isolation or abandoning the world stage. The U.S. would still trade, cooperate, and exert influence, but with a much tighter focus on defending the continent, stabilizing our near abroad, and avoiding unnecessary entanglements.

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, whiskybravo said:

Yes, I m not talking about full isolation or abandoning the world stage. The U.S. would still trade, cooperate, and exert influence, but with a much tighter focus on defending the continent, stabilizing our near abroad, and avoiding unnecessary entanglements.

I cant think of a single example in history where going increasingly isolationist has benefitted that country long term.  I can think of many where it has made the country much worse off.

 

I can think of many examples where removing isolationism and increasing cooperation, trade and collaboration has lifted counties sharply. 

[73 Reds]

17 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I cant think of a single example in history where going increasingly isolationist has benefitted that country long term.  I can think of many where it has made the country much worse off.

 

I can think of many examples where removing isolationism and increasing cooperation, trade and collaboration has lifted counties sharply. 

It is a mistake to extrapolate current strategies and policies - which are largely perceived as corrective with regard to prior mistaken policies and strategies, into the infinite future.

[dwy000]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

It is a mistake to extrapolate current strategies and policies - which are largely perceived as corrective with regard to prior mistaken policies and strategies, into the infinite future.

That is completely unrelated to the question or my response. 

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

That is completely unrelated to the question or my response. 

Still reeling from yesterday, are we?

[dwy000]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Still reeling from yesterday, are we?

When you practically admitted to being in a cult by having no independent opinion after supporting a Trump policy that completely was opposed to your just stated view?

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

When you practically admitted to being in a cult by having no independent opinion after supporting a Trump policy that completely was opposed to your just stated view?

It would be interesting to count how many posts of yours include the word "cult". 

[whiskybravo]

37 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I cant think of a single example in history where going increasingly isolationist has benefitted that country long term.  I can think of many where it has made the country much worse off.

 

I can think of many examples where removing isolationism and increasing cooperation, trade and collaboration has lifted counties sharply. 

The post-WWII global order built on free trade, mutual security, and good will between Western-aligned nations. That system depended on certain shared norms: openness, reciprocity, and stable rules of engagement.

 

Today, that framework feels increasingly outdated. China, for example, has pursued a strategy of allowing foreign firms into its markets only with local partners, absorbing their operating models and technologies, and then sidelining or replacing them. 
 

Perhaps this behavior calls for a significant strategic shift.

[RichardGibbons]

9 hours ago, Parsad said:

The general consensus view in Canada on housing pricing in overpriced cities is not related to immigration as much as it is speculators buying multiple properties, foreign buyers with second homes, local buyers buying multiple homes to use as short-term AirBNB's rather than for local long-term rentals.

 

I think this is not at all accurate. The consensus view is certainly that immigration is a major factor in housing unaffordability (though not the only factor). For that matter, immigration is seen as a major factor in the decline of Canada's social systems, wages, and employment levels.

That said, I would agree that left-wing politicians strongly claim that it's related to speculation, foreign buyers, and AirBNBs. Largely I think that's because most politicians thrive on hate, and for left wing politicians, that means brewing hate against groups where they can justify new taxes.

 

It's certain that Canada's more racist than it was a decade ago, and two decades ago. That's the consequence of politicians focusing on identity politics and hate. The primary difference between the right and the left is the groups that they target for hate.

 

In terms of not really seeing it in real life, I think that's natural. The media and public commentary are so focused on certain narratives that it's impossible to express counter-narratives in public without massive negative personal consequences.  So, you'll end up with a "silent minority" group that disagrees with the narratives, but won't express it in public.  There's more of this whispering than I've ever seen before in my life. And that's how we get people like Trump elected, even voted for by many minorities who were supposed to be lock-ins for the Democrats.

[DooDiligence]

Mango Mussolini (aka: Cankles the Clown) declares war on an American city.

 

https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-immigration-raids-could-ramp-saturday-agents-set-naval-station-great-lakes-north-il/17755715/

 

Release the Epstein files UN-REDACTED.

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

It would be interesting to count how many posts of yours include the word "cult". 

Only with certain posters.  Odd huh?  I guess if the shoe fits.....

[cubsfan]

5 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

The post-WWII global order built on free trade, mutual security, and good will between Western-aligned nations. That system depended on certain shared norms: openness, reciprocity, and stable rules of engagement.

 

Today, that framework feels increasingly outdated. China, for example, has pursued a strategy of allowing foreign firms into its markets only with local partners, absorbing their operating models and technologies, and then sidelining or replacing them. 
 

Perhaps this behavior calls for a significant strategic shift.

 

Yup, the real adversary for the USA is China. They've a strong desire to kill our citizens with drugs and have been amazingly successful. They'll use their Belt & Road initiative to control other countries - South & Central America as much as possible - it's been very effective- and the US needs to be prepared for more.

 

We'll get control of the Panama Canal again, the Arctic and invest a lot more resources into the western hemisphere.

[LC]

50 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

We'll get control of the Panama Canal again, the Arctic and invest a lot more resources into the western hemisphere.

 

Yeah we really need to strengthen our hemisphere.

 

A great start would be building a huge wall between us and our neighbors to the south, and then let's spend 150B to pay a bunch of proud-boys wannabes to abduct millions of our southern neighbors from their homes and ship them to prisons in totally random countries.

 

But we're America - we can walk and chew gum. So while we're at it, let's piss off our neighbors to the north with a barrage of threats, tariffs, and a lies about drug smuggling.

 

As the coup de grace let's try a little light espionage - maybe our spies could do a totally crap job of covertly fomenting independence movements with our "good friends" in Greenland. 

 

Surely this will build a strong western hemisphere.

[LC]

Did I mention we can walk and chew gum, all at the same time? 

 

Building a strong western hemisphere is a top priority. And we are doing that, of course.

 

But let's not forget our friends and enemies across the Atlantic. Why have friends and enemies, you say? Seems complicated...and you're right! Let's just have enemies. So we'll abandon support for almost all of our longstanding European allies, lob a bunch of threats and tariffs at them, and damage any chance of productive partnership as a united front against China and Russia. 

 

 

[cubsfan]

Our neighbors can stop exporting their criminals and deadly drugs to us.

 

I really love the left - all they care about is protecting illegal criminals.