I really hope the Liberals and other parties bring up how PP still won’t get security clearance. How are we supposed to trust someone to govern us and claim to protect our sovereignty against the US and others, but they refuse to get clearance?

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.

One of the polls suggested that with Carney as Liberal leader, the Liberals would either be tied with the Conservatives, or even slightly ahead. But I’m just hoping that people don’t take the polls for granted and don’t get out and vote. While PP may have lost some ground in Ontario, he still has Alberta, so Liberals need to stay focused, since there’s no telling when the election would be called, and they have to get their own leader in place first before that happens. If and when Carney gets elected Liberal leader, my concern is that some people will just think there’ll be a large enough turnout that they don’t have to vote themselves. I think right now, the negativity that’s turning some people off PP and the Conservatives is mainly being fuelled by Trump. But if Trump turns his attention to things like the Middle East, or talks about Canada less, then I’m worried that people will become complacent and not see PP as someone who basically supports just about everything Trump says.

And even though PP talks about ‘Canada First’ and how he’d stand up for Canadians, I don’t see him talking back to Trump. I can see Trump saying something offensive against Canada, and PP either deflecting, or blaming Trudeau, instead of defending Canada. Another thing is, I don’t see PP trying to foster relations with other nations, he just wants to cozy up to Trump, either due to ideology, or because he thinks it will appease him, or both.

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.