Russia gave Syria S-300 and S-400 systems which could supposedly knock out some of the most advanced bomber jets, yet not one Israeli fighter was downed over Syria. And this is before F-35s existed.
Like you said, Israel playing both sides and both sides know it too.
Yes, and Iran invasion, and Cuba blockade, etc..
Again, we are not at open war (bullets flying, missiles dropping) for us to not care if centralization of power or when subverting parts of our democracy is happening.
The premise of the post and article is centralization of power as if it's wartime, and we're not at active war.
When has the federal reserve influenced foreign policy then or even domestic policy? How exactly does it help Israel?
You've drawn a parallel...OK and then what? How does the majority of them being of Jewish background (and that's assuming 1- they're religious not just of the ethnicity and 2- that they're Zionist) drive your point home exactly?
If we're willing to abandon Democratic principles when war (actual battle) hasn't even been declared, then I don't see much hope for what will be left of our current democracy when/if that happens.
Done the same and worse to Mexico. They're neither arming up or dismantling parts of their democratic process.
If this is how we're rolling over with the "existential threat" of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That's literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
Well I'm just glad that someone is mentioning disaster capitalism and that really is my main point to the premise of this post about centralization of power.
My "war" in quotations was about the economic war. Trump's posturing is fucked up, aggressive, and definitely threatening; and he was betting on Canada buying weapons from the US for protection like Denmark is doing.
Um...its not a choice of centralization or decentralization of power. What? Those aren't the only choices!
Point: The choice is don't go against the Democratic process and principles.
Like when he made a partisan appointment to roles of governance
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-senate-tom-pitfield-9.7261037
Prime minister ends Trudeau-era policy of nonpartisan appointments
Following that thread, him appointing Martel to open another seat in that riding which Carney is betting goes to a liberal seat
On the one hand, the Prime Minister gets to say that he’s non-partisan by appointing a Conservative to the Senate. On the other hand, creating an opening in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord creates a situation where the Liberals can win another seat
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we've seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn't centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn't go against political norms.
Well thanks for the added context. My understanding was that the profits were going to Canada considering that we paid for the bridge.
I guess the Moroun's really obfuscated the information out there.
What do you think tariffs are? They're literally defined as isolationist and protectionist methods by a government.
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/tariffs-and-economic-isolationism-four-principles-for-a-response/
https://uslawexplained.com/isolationism
Here's a wikipedia article if you'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
It's also the terminology applied preceding to WW2 when isolationist policies of European countries applied tariffs to imports from competing empires. Which is why the couldn't recover well from WW1.
So I appreciate the condescending tone, I really do.
But if your only issue with my comment is that "I don't understand tariffs" and that's what you decided to be aggressive about when the main premise is Carney's overreach of power, then that's not my problem.
I'm sorry, why would it be considered a misconception that I don't want power centralized?
