If Wishes Were Horses…

Canada’s Bolsheviks nannystate New Governor There Goes The Narrative 57 Comments

As of yesterday social media has been chock full of posts from Carney’s water carriers desperately trying to rationalize a defeat into victory. Good luck with that. All that remains now is to declare than any trade deal is a good deal so that the remaining provinces can safely lift the ban on American booze while hoping that no one remembers their idiocy.

“If I were leading the country, I’d fight. I think we should fight this guy,” he told the station.

Kinew said Manitoba still has to see some details, but if the booze goes back on shelves, his government reserves the right to pull it back off again if U.S. President Donald Trump changes terms.

 

57 Replies to “If Wishes Were Horses…”

  2. Kinew is an absolute moron. There he sits on a province that gets 15% of its provincial budget through equalization and really provides little of value to Canada. Tough talk for someone sitting in the bleachers.

  3. L – Manitobans may soon realize, while they do have a Kinew. They are up the economic creek without a paddle.

    The current NDP elite outlawed paddling your own canoe. This because it implied agency, rather than victimhood.

    1. The City of Winnipeg and all of the Reserves to the north, do not have clue and voted for this clown show. Southern Manitoba is solid Conservative, but without something like proportional representation or votes.
      Enuf of the petty, woke virtue signaling. Hey Knob Canoe, man up, put the US booze back on the shelves and let consumers decide.

  5. At this point any deal that provides some certainty is a “win”.
    So even losing ,is a win if it ends that endless temper tantrum the elbozos are throwing.

    1. Problem is, it won’t. He’ll be demanding annexation again, as soon as it is signed.

      1. Why would he want to annex when he can just strip mine without the bother of acquiring any new voters?

        1. “Why would he want to annex”

          Did you notice that Donald Trump likes to put a big gold TRUMP sign on everything that he can?
          Yes, he does. Donald Trump wants to leave his mark on this world everywhere that he can. He does.
          Sometimes it’s good for America. Sometimes it’s just a big gold TRUMP sign. It’s like a dog marking.

          1. “Sometimes it’s good for America. Sometimes it’s just a big gold TRUMP sign. It’s like a dog marking.”

            I wish I could disagree…but that’s pretty much exactly what he does, yeah.

      2. Sure, why not demand annexation again? What are his enemies going to do that they haven’t done?
        Do it President Trump. Demand the annexation of Canaduh. Call Mark Carney a Governor. Belittle him.
        LOL

  7. The deal has all the similarities of a conditional real estate sale.
    Carney was given three days to fulfill the conditions
    If he can’t get the conditions fulfilled the 50% kick in.
    The only reason I can think of why we don’t hear much is that there is something in it that is a political liability for the folks being tight lipped about what’s in it.
    Trump seems to be willing to expound on what’s in the deal.
    Team Carney seems intent on framing it as a work in progress and supply management isn’t going to be sacrificed, like they still don’t have a deal. Which sounds like it is and they are desperately trying to get Trump to relent on that condition.
    Just sit back and watch all the “geniuses” tell us what we think as they devolve into Baghdad Bob.

    1. Two things there. One, Iran is doing business with China. I don’t think Trump can cut them out. Two, the Democrats have been helping the Liberals out for years with money, strategy, and volunteers. Americans interfering in Canadian elections is old news.

      1. A couple of things here:
        One: read it — https://theijf.org/brief/iran-crypto-laundering-in-canada
        China’s connections to Iran are at least somewhat out in the open but your government has been allowing shadow ops for quite some time now.

        Two: As for your elections: you should be doing something about that (the money, etc.) as that is supposed to be a no-no; honestly, I think the laws in both countries should change so no more foreigners, not even unpaid volunteers.
        But a Liberal MP coming down and helping Lil’ Debbie with her primary? She of the Awan bros scandal? In the midst of a very important trade negotiation between our two countries? With your charming and delightful Minister of Industry saying (on video) that she had been visiting American politicians up for reelection (instead of staying in Washington, where the trade negotiations were…huh, funny that).
        Although, we should probably thank Canadians for sending their MP down here (and then pasting it all over his social media), considering that it’s Lil’ Debbie Noodles and the district she’s running in, and the candidates she beat. This is really too good to not make a campaign issue. It could blow back on you, cause some discomfiture (and the timing! oh dear!) but…oh well.

        Tsk, tsk, tsk — very bad form there old buddy, very bad indeed.

        2. Sorry, the article is paywalled for me. You are correct though. Canada has a huge organized crime problem. It’s been going for over 13 years that I know of. The triads and cartels started laundering money in BC. They then got into other rackets and spread out across Canada. They were eventually joined by organized crime from other countries. One of the reasons people were hoping for a Conservative government is because right leaning governments tend to have more of a law and order agenda. Plus it would kick the legs out from under a number of left leaning parties and organizations.

          BTW, the cartels we’re having problems with migrated to Canada via the US. We both have problems with organized crime. Eliminating these cartels is something that both our countries would do well to cooperate on.

  9. Yup, the elbows up idiot crowd never stood a chance in a trade war. Canada needs the US far far far far more than they need us. Morons. Hmmm, lets see the world largest free market a few miles away, or communist China 10,000 miles away. Duh.

  10. The bulk of Kinew’s supporters don’t care if their booze (or hand sanitizer / Aqua Velva) is Canadian or American, only which is the cheapest.

  12. posturing. optics. socialism. absurdities. TDS. did l miss anything?
    yo. MB. congrats. Canaduh is the world’s laughing stock and YOU are Canaduh’s laughing stock.

  13. And this, Dear Friends, is what it means to be Canadian.
    In the US, if you want to boycott a product for whatever reason, you make that choice yourself and don’t buy that product.
    In Canada, the government makes that choice for you, and bans things so that you cannot possibly choose on your own.
    Because they know best what you want, what you really really want.

  14. It was an enormous relief to hear that supply management has been preserved. I was desperately afraid that we would be subjected to cheaper chicken, eggs and dairy products. Thanks, Mark.

    1. Ohhhhhhhhhhh Jim mommmmaaaa … US chicken and eggs are dripping in bird flu and salmonella… even campylobacter!! The CDC and FDA have declared so.

      Your PM is just keeping Canada safe from tainted US produce.

    2. Cheaper dairy, poultry, and eggs? Where is this? American taxpayers subsidize the hell out of dairy. It isn’t cheaper for US taxpayers.

      1. But not like you think.
        Grok:
        “The effects are generally modest—especially for the main current subsidy programs—and vary by product and policy type. U.S. dairy support influences consumer prices through supply, farm-level milk prices, and marketing regulations, though farm value typically accounts for only about 25–50% of the retail price of dairy products (the rest covers processing, distribution, retailing, and other costs). Pass-through is incomplete, and other factors (feed costs, demand, exports, processing capacity, and retail margins) often dominate short-term retail price movements.

        “Current Main Programs (e.g., Dairy Margin Coverage / DMC)DMC and similar risk-management tools (like subsidized Dairy Revenue Protection insurance) primarily provide income support when the national milk-feed margin falls below chosen levels. Payments are based largely on historical production and are only partially production-linked, especially for larger farms. Economic analyses indicate these programs have limited effects on aggregate milk production and market prices. As a result, their impact on retail prices of milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, etc., is generally small.

        “Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs), which set minimum prices processors pay farmers based on end use) have clearer, though still modest, effects: They raise the average farm milk price by a few percent.They typically increase retail prices for fluid (beverage) milk. They can lower prices for some manufactured products (cheese, butter, powder) by shifting the product mix

        “Older estimates suggested fluid-milk prices could be notably higher (e.g., double-digit percentages in some historical studies) under stronger order rules, while manufactured-product consumers sometimes benefit
        The old Dairy Product Price Support Program (government purchases of cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk to prop up farm prices, ended after the 2014 Farm Bill). “Removing it reduced government stocks and allowed markets to clear more freely. Reverting to outdated “permanent law” high supports (the so-called “dairy cliff”) would force large government purchases and could substantially raise retail dairy prices.
        Broader Context from USDA/ERS Analyses:
        “Older comprehensive studies of dairy programs found they raised the all-milk price by roughly 1% on average (more in low-price periods), boosted producer revenues by a few percent, and raised consumer costs modestly. Effects can differ by product: higher fluid-milk prices alongside sometimes lower prices for manufactured goods.

        Bottom line: Under today’s primary tools, the consumer-price impact is limited compared with historical price-support regimes. Retail dairy prices are driven far more by broader market forces than by these programs.

        “Dairy generally receives less than major row crops (corn, soybeans, etc.) under commodity title programs, and dairy producers have sometimes been excluded from certain large ad hoc farm relief packages focused on covered commodities. Older Canadian analyses (using broader definitions that include indirect supports) have claimed very high effective subsidy rates in some years, but those figures are debated and go beyond the core USDA dairy programs.”

      2. “Cheaper dairy, poultry, and eggs? Where is this? American taxpayers subsidize the hell out of dairy. It isn’t cheaper for US taxpayers.”

        Then I suppose you also agree that Canada’s healthcare isn’t cheaper than American healthcare.

  15. In any event, supply management isn’t going anywhere. Carney is just going to allow more US dairy products into Canada and hugely increase the ridiculously high “compensation for imaginary losses” that we are already paying to the SM extortionists.

    So, bend over a bit more, poor bloody taxpayer.

    1. Canadians love to pay their farmers to pour millions of liters of milk down the drain every year.
      Its as Canuckian as maple syrup, hockey rinks, bad coffee, yellow snow and Elbows Up.

    2. The government doesn’t subsidies the dairy cartel, the individual does. That’s what supply side management is all about. If the Americans have broken the dairy cartel, the government may start subsidising them directly like the US government does with their dairy farmers, plus a handling fee of course.

      1. “the government may start subsidising them directly…”

        The government has been compensating (subsidizing) dairy farmers for several years already because of supposed market losses due to the small amounts of US dairy products that have been allowed in to Canada.

        1. I stand corrected. The government subsidies the dairy industry to the tune of about $200 million a year to “compensate” them for CETA, CPTPP, and CUSMA.

          Thanks for that ☺️

  17. Don’t kid yourself, Carney probably has a backup plan to subsidize the dairy cartel should Trump dig in his heels.

    Watching the Canadian press off and on today is hilarious. You’d think they’re reporting the first moon landing, what with all the their praise for Canadian trade “negotiators”. The CBC, or Maple Pravda as I like to call them, are particularly moist over said negotiators prowess.

    You can tell the majority of the elbows up sycophants never signed the front side of a paycheck before. A simple rule of business is you don’t badmouth a client responsible for 80% of your sales until AFTER you’ve secured replacement clients.

    Where would the liberals be without the dependant class?

    1. “You can tell the majority of the elbows up sycophants never signed the front side of a paycheck before”
      I’m going to use that. Brilliant and thanks

  18. Given that we don’t know the full details, declaring a winner and loser here seems premature.

    1. Suffice to say you’ll call it a win for Carney and a loss for Trump regardless. Prove me wrong.

      1. And you’ll do the opposite. Prove me wrong.

        But in truth, trade wars produce two losers, and an agreement to mutually reduce trade barriers produce two winners. For the millionth time, trade is not a zero-sum game.

        1. Calling it a Trade War doesn’t make it so. It’s simply hardball negotiation. Please make a note of it.

          1. The ability of the MAGA crowd to warp and rationalize never ceases to amaze. When you’ve got Trump threatening to retaliate if Canada retaliates, then yeah, it’s a trade war.

            But call it what you will, if this agreement significantly lowers trade barriers on both sides then both sides win the negotiation. This isn’t a freakin’ baseball game where there can only be one winner.

          2. Here’s what’s NOT a war … one side takes advantage of the other, so the aggrieved side THREATENS a war … then the other side THREATENS retaliation … then the two come to an agreement and shake hands.

            NOT. A. WAR.

            By any definition of the term.

          3. Poor little Americans. Always being taken advantage of by nasty Canadians.

            But hey, you want to use the Kenji American English Dictionary, have at ‘er.

        2. “But in truth, trade wars produce two losers, and an agreement to mutually reduce trade barriers produce two winners.”

          Canada will make major concessions because we have no choice. The US will throw us a small bone or two just to look magnanimous. It was never going to end any other way. It *could* never end any other way.

          We now look like children who have had their wrists slapped (and rightly so).

          1. You seem enamoured by raw power, as if that always wins the day. It’s a bit naive.

            Trump’s main weapon in a trade war is to tax Americans. There are limits to how much he can do that before congress says enough is enough. As an example, the deliverable price of aluminum ingots in Chicagao is half again what it is in Toronto. This is a huge problem for US manufacturers who use aluminum, who must then try to pass the extra cost on to consumers. And it makes their products uncompetitive on world markets.

            Part of this deal looks like a reduction in American aluminum tariffs. That will benefit the US more than Canada, as Canadian smelters have found willing buyers in Europe. One Canadian smelter (Rio Tinto) announced an expansion plan in May despite US tariffs.

        3. “You seem enamoured by raw power, as if that always wins the day. It’s a bit naive.”

          Recognizing reality is never naive. Denying it is childish.

    1. US booze? They should have sold it cheap to Alberta. It would displace US booze we would buy currently.

  21. To think that Manitoba was once ruled by the Metis – and is now under Wab rule!

    (That’s a little arcane. “Wabrule” was a name sometimes used for the Metis, a corruption of “bois brule” = “burnt wood”, which they were sometimes called because of their skin colour.)

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation