I’m pretty sure they dropped their anti-nuclear stance.

But this election is about Canadian sovereignty. Unfortunately, smaller parties will be pushed out for now so that sovereignty can be protected. Once we keep the country and take steps to diversify away from the US, and the CPC kicks out the crazies, we can boot the Liberals and maybe the other small parties (left and right) will be inclined to work together on something groundbreaking, like electoral reform.

You are coming from a genuine place, so I’m going to assume we’re discussing in good faith.

With respect, I think you should be less apologetic and perhaps a bit more angry. I say this because this situation goes rather beyond just advocating for a single industry to the detriment of the electorate, as blatantly corrupt as that itself is. This is about a Premier who is illegally representing Canada to a state actor who is currently in borderline hostile and unprecedented negotiations with us, and to whom the Premier is collaborating on hostile economic action for the purposes of partisan political gain. And this ignores the threats to national sovereignty from a hostile state actor, and the very clear and repeated actions by the Premier, her party and her supporters to make it clear that they support separatist sentiments, up to and including threatening a national unity crisis if their ridiculous self serving demands are not met. A list of demands, I might add, that was forced on the PM of Canada, without any equivalent list of demands given to the hostile state actor, where it rightfully should have been.

She didn’t even ask for no tariffs. She said pause them until after the election, so the guy she wants to win can get in and “align with their directions”.

This is out and out treason, or at least illegal under the elections act and/or criminal code and people need to stop making excuses about it and treat it as what it is. Refusing to prosecute this will bring us down the same road as the Americans when they refused to prosecute Trump for his blatant insurrection and attempts to subvert democracy.

What Smith is doing cannot be allowed to be precedent.

This makes me unreasonably angry.

Any assumption of good faith discussions with her or her supporters should be abandoned. In my mind this cements them as outright traitors. We need to kick American oil interests out of our country, immediately. This is what they have wrought. I don’t give a dry fuck what Smith, the UCP and all the other Alberta separatists think of this proposal. They should be considered criminals and treated accordingly.

Frankly the Conservatives had better come out strong against this, or they will forever be the party of treason to their country. This is inexcusable. I don’t care what you think about policy…if you believe this is okay, you can shut the fuck up about what you think is good for the country because you have no interest in the country itself.

Before we miss our window: 50% export tax on hydro, oil and potash. And start charging tolls to ship by road through BC to Alaska.

Nationalize US pharma patents.

Nationalize strategic resources, in particular oil.

Offer US scientists, engineers and doctors research labs and startup funds.

Kill USMCA dairy quotas…RFKs FDA is a threat to a healthy milk supply anyway, and we need to look out for national health.

And if the incoming tariffs kill US auto makers, repurpose for Canadian made EVs.

And don’t forget to restrict US investment, particularly in key strategic resources. We can’t let them execute a hostile corporate takeover.

It’s not a threat, it’s the reality of how these things go. With most of our WW2 veterans dead, most people have neither connection to, nor appreciation of, what happens during a military occupation. They think it’s a fucking joke. It most certainly isn’t. The moment hostilities become inevitable, all of the people who thought it was funny to “own the libs” by publicly supporting annexation will find they are easy, identifiable targets for righteous anger, and they should best get out before they’re put out. Note that the government will not have time for controlled and legally respectful deportation, and it will be aggrieved patriots who decide their fate. Crowds of angry, scared people are not gentle, and they tend to be creative in the most horrible ways.

After hostilities end, no matter how they end, these people will still not feel any comfort. If they end up on the wrong side of history, as they usually do as traitors in an occupation, their fate is grim indeed.

The bottom line is they really should reexamine their loyalties carefully and if they choose to retain treasonous loyalties they should strongly consider leaving Canada. Not sure why they would want to stay anyway, when they clearly do not offer nor deserve the respect of their fellow Canadians.

Yeah I hear you 100%. At this point any of the Postmedia outlets should be considered American propaganda, and they cannot be trusted.

However in this case the survey was from Angus Reid I believe. You can find the results elsewhere.

I own multiple firearms - including handguns, shotguns, 30 cals, even a C7 - and I don’t agree with the approach the Liberals have on gun laws currently. I hope they change their approach given the current context.

But I also know that in Canada owning guns is a privilege not a right, and the government can choose to limit that privilege, as governments have done in many other countries. In Canada you simply cannot use self defense as a reason to own a gun.

I will not vote against all of my interests, on every other issue, and against the sovereignty of my country, because I want to own all of my guns. If you want to defend your country, join the police or the military. You can join the reserves part time. If you don’t want to do it now, don’t worry…you will have the option to do so if it comes to hostilities, you will get training and you will get guns.

I’m skeptical that you were ever going to do anything differently, whether or not Donald Trump had changed the calculus. I suspect you were always a single issue voter on this. So I doubt what I say will make a difference, but at least you might be able to appreciate why someone might not want to support the Conservatives despite the fact that they own guns and despite the fact that they understand why you might feel safer with your guns.

The reality is if there are truly hostilities, nothing will be the same and no one will be safe. I will not hand my country over to a party that I don’t trust to protect the country’s sovereignty based on gun laws that won’t mean shit anyway if that sovereignty is violated.

Edit to add one other point: Frankly if 1 in 5 Conservatives are traitors to the country, the fact that they own guns is just as much a danger to me as a potential American invasion, maybe more so because they are not a potential threat but a real one. Maybe the party that claims to support the country, its sovereignty and its well-being should weed those elements out before they start pushing to arm everyone.

This may be so but as we’ve seen in other contexts - e.g., Brexit and the last US election - these are exactly the people that can do incredible damage that can last generations.

Oh please fuck right off with this apologist bullshit.

I don’t care what people think, and it wouldn’t matter if I did, as long as they keep their treasonous sympathies in their own head.

The moment they voice it or act on it, then it becomes expression. And freedom of expression does not extend to treasonous or seditious speech or action, as it’s defined in the criminal code.

And anyway, where freedom of expression applies, it only protects against government suppression or legal repercussions. It has nothing to say about me making their lives miserable and making sure everyone knows they’re treasonous Yank sympathizers and just generally untrustworthy pieces of shit. And these people know that which is why they rarely make their views known publicly.

Well that, and they know that if they out themselves they’ll be the first up against the wall if shit gets ugly.

The problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people that want the US to annex Canada.

In the US, about 15% of Trump voters would support annexation of Canada, even if Canada didn’t want it. That’s about 1 in 7.

https://vancouversun.com/news/trump-51st-state-most-americans-have-no-interest-in-canada-annex

The disturbing thing is that about 18% of Canadian Conservatives would support annexation. That’s almost 1 in 5. Most of us know five Conservatives, so chances are you know someone who is essentially a traitor. I think Conservative supporters need to be aware that this is the company they keep.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/large-majority-of-canadians-reject-trumps-annexation-overtures-poll-suggests/

Assuming your question is not rhetorical…

Some combustion products have climatic effects. For you to lean into this, the next step would be to calculate the relative effect of perhaps 80 tons of space junk burning up on reentry per year, versus perhaps 42 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. You’ll want to estimate the radiative forcing or climatic effects of the space junk combustion products to get there. I’ll save you the effort and tell you that space junk burning up on reentry is likely to be several hundred thousand times less impactful than terrestrial GHG emmissions.

Which should not be surprising intuitively, just considering the volume of GHGs we produce globally each year.

I think Kessler is rather less of a concern than global climate change.

You use any of the launch providers, yes, including Arianspace.

Correctamundo. You can’t speed up light. For low latency you need LEO, and since they don’t sit still for you (8km/s roughly) you need a bunch of them in some kind of formation or constellation, so that you generally have something to connect to at any given moment, or at least a chain that can relay to ground stations.

I suggest you look up the solution that Telesat will use. I’m not involved in that project, but a quick glance shows me that the engineers involved have probably done their homework and have considered the customer base and their needs, including the need to service all regions of the country.

Terrestrial solutions for remote areas typically have excessive build out and maintenance costs.

Engineers will do a tradeoff and select the most suitable solution given the criteria. It’s very easy to underestimate costs, particularly over the entire lifetime of the system.

deleted by creator

Yes there are such solutions, but for remote regions without infrastructure and with high build out and operating/maintenance costs for terrestrial technology, I suspect that the most cost effective solution that we can achieve in a timely fashion is probably LEO, like Lightspeed or Starlink. Particularly since Canada has half a century of experience building satellite systems.

Managing LEO debris and congestion is not an insurmountable challenge.

Buddy, I’m an aero eng. There are lots of ways to get satellites in polar orbits.

Why didn’t you look at the actual Lightspeed site from Telesat? Why would you pick a random paper? The Telesat site explains how they get coverage in polar regions.

https://www.telesat.com/leo-satellites/

Fibre is not going to get us up north.