Why a military takeover of Canada won't work

 

Wow. If you look at the comment section, they are Canadians who are quite hostile to the idea. But I'm not concerned about them. Instead, actually watch the video.

Canada will have to be broken down into at least (10) ten states. That's twenty Senators. This would likely be a liberal bloc. Steve Forbes exaggerates the possibilities, but it would be clear that the American quality of our country would be overly diluted in the Senate. That would spill over into the legislation that could come out of Congress. That would not be good. That's not acceptable, period.

But once again, I think that Trump is not being literal about taking over Canada. The Canadian response so far shows once again how people cannot handle the guy. A reasonable Canadian response would have been to negotiate the terms of the relationship that already exists. Ten to one, his discussions with their leaders got responses like what could be seen in the comment section. I think that brought out the dismissive tone of Trump. You cannot disprespect the guy without getting a blunt response right back out of him.

A more realistic thing would be to force Canada into a puppet state relationship. Canada doesn't have the power to stop this if that is what is truly wanted. It might be truly wanted if the Canucks don't change their hostile attitude. In other words, offering an equal footing in our own councils is TOO DAMNED NICE. They might have to be put back into their place.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Some Democrats wanted Trump to win the GOP nomination in 2016. I'm sure that they regret that now. Trump turned out to be far more formidable than they imagined. This could always happen. If you oppose Sanders and AOC, then don't wish for any success for them on any level. Work to obtain that outcome. Otherwise, you could be the author of your own doom.

'Please Let This Be True'! James Woods and Others Spot a Winning (Nudge Nudge) Non-GOP 2028 Ticket https://t.co/cmYB3rMDns --- Not so sure about the wisdom of this.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 22, 2025

Why Autopen matters

Via Instapundit, "good stuff from Bill, as always".

Question: What will be done about this?

Joy Reid: "Canada would win a war against USA"

3/21/25, 7:27 AM:

 

Joy Reid predicts that America will go to war with Canada and lose pic.twitter.com/ACyHoW8mh1

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 21, 2025

Comment:

Wars are unpredictable. It all depends upon what is the objective. She seems to take Trump literally. She seems to think that the USA is willing to go out and conquer Canada. I see it as a generous offer. Trump believes that Canada would be better off as a state than as a country. Trumps' rhetoric is an offer, not a threat.

If conquest was the intent, then who would win? Such an objective would require a pretty strong grip on power at the executive level in the USA. As it now stands, I'd say it wouldn't go quickly enough to do it within Trump's timeframe.

However, the USA beat Germany and Japan in World War II ( with the help of Allies in Europe, but mostly alone against Japan). Canada doesn't have the means to beat the USA in an ass kicking contest. If Germany and Japan couldn't do it, Canada sure as hell can't do it.

Canada cannot win an all out war with the USA. But a certain kind of war might be winnable for them. However, conditions could change that might make any war unwinnable for Canada. They'd be advised not to provoke such a war. Canada seems to want to be enemies with the US. In such a scenario, they'd lose BIG TIME.

On the face of it, Joy Reid seems ridiculous. An ill-advised kind of war would be a disaster for both sides. It might look like Russia v Ukraine. Ukraine cannot win an ass-kicking contest, but they sure can make victory a Pyrrhic one for Russia. It would be odd for Trump to start such a war with Canada. I don't think that is his intent.

10:10 AM:

Who the hell would want an actual shooting war here? Cui bono? The whole scenario is absurd.

Is this a scam?

 

Yep.

Impossible to get to Mars?

Getting there may not be the problem. Getting there and back alive and well is indeed a problem. Therefore, I think the first missions will be suicide missions. If you complicate matters with the insistence that everybody must come back alive and well, then it might be impossible with the tech we have now.

But someday, not long from now, it will be possible. I think so, because of the rapid advances in robotics. Robots could make a human presence possible. They'll be sent in any case, as Musk said he will send his own robots to Mars. The robots could prepare the war for a short term existence on Mars, but it will take a lot of missions, and a lot of commitment to make the whole thing viable for anything but short term suicide missions. A civilization of over a million people seems like a pipe dream. However, a highly dangerous mission in the near term is likely. Maybe not before the end of the decade, but early in the next.

Are we missing the point?

Who is being targeted here? Musk? Perhaps so, but they are also targeting people who have bought these cars, are they not? The people who bought these cars are now afraid to be associated with Tesla. They wish to make people people afraid to buy these cars, or to be seen in them.

There was never any economic reason to buy these cars. People who bought them were virtue signalling their "enviromental sensitivity". Now they want to take all that "virtue" out of owning and driving these vehicles, and to replace that "virtue" with hatred and fear. And the effect is to punish Elon Musk. Maybe they'd like to kill Musk, too.

The effect is to take out the guy who made electric cars feasible, when all the prior efforts to make electric cars cool had failed. What they are really punishing is Musk's wishes to follow his own course. If he made cars that a whole lot of people would be better off owning, then they would also be punishing the whole world. Then why? Just because he defied THEM? What makes THEM so high and mighty? Hell hath no fury like the liberal scorned.

These people are trying to take away the people's right to choose what they want to drive, even if the reasons are silly. Tesla can stand or fall on its merits, not because they pissed off a bunch of leftist assholes. It was, after all, only leftist assholes who bought the damned things in the first place. Whoop-de-doo. They punish themselves. Damn idiots.

Believe what you will

3/20/25:

The assassination of JFK is in the news again. It so happens that I was perusing the Roku channel, and I found the Quantum Leap episodes that were referred to in the video below.

What to write about it, then? That is, what to write about the TV shows that were aired in the 1990's. I'd say too many people worry about it, meaning the assassination. Sometimes a thing is what it appears to be, and nothing more. People want to see more in it than what was there. That's my take.

Kennedy was shot. So was Reagan. So was Trump. People do things. People believe things. I don't believe Kennedy was assassinated by some grand plot. So I think that this post has aged well. At least, it seems that way because my opinion still remains the same as it was back then. People will believe what they want. So be it.

10/15/22:

Comment:

The controversy surrounding the events of the JFK assassination has taken on a life of its own. It may never die. As for the video, I recall watching the show when it was on teevee some thirty years ago. It was about something that happened almost thirty years before that show aired. So now, that event is almost sixty years old.

People have written books about the assassination. The one I've got was written by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi didn't think there was a conspiracy, and gave ample evidence that it was not. As for Oliver Stone's movie, there were a few scenes that were made up from thin air. Bugliosi seems more credible to me.

My viewpoint is a lot like Bellisario's when he says that people "want to believe in it". You hear an awful lot about conspiracy theories these days. Conspiracy theories can cut both ways. Maybe we should look beyond the conspiracy theory allegations, and look at from the viewpoint of "cui bono". Who benefits from the use of a conspiracy theory for some advantage? It goes both ways. Those who set forth a conspiracy theory, and those who try to refute it.

The best way to refute a conspiracy theory is with facts. But there's that problem with the desire to believe a conspiracy theory mentioned above. Facts themselves can be disputed, or denied.

I've checked into it ( the JFK assassination conspiracy theory) about as much as I'd like to. At some point, you have to decide for yourself what you believe. I don't believe there was one with respect to JFK. As for the latest being floated about and denied today ( with regards to the 2020 election), there hasn't been enough facts that have come to the fore to put it to rest one way or another. One thing is certain: there's no way Brandon got 81 million votes. No way. Interesting to note who is trying to capitalize politically upon it, and who is trying to suppress any honest investigation of it.

More Background on Judge James Boasberg - The Fight Continues

Last Refuge

This one stinks to high heaven. Chief Justice Roberts could be implicated in some crooked sheet, main.

Why the left must be destroyed politically

 

So now it's terrorism for you lefties?

Isn't it a bit strange that the conservatives are protecting the once lefty ( and maybe still lefty ) folks who bought their Teslas for virtue signalling, but are now paying the price from their brethren who are now torching their pricey electric vehicles?

That's why it was NEVER about the environment. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. For if they cared about the environment, they wouldn't be trying to trash the leading manufacturer of electric vehicles that will "save the Earth".

Maybe some hardcore lefty libtards will wake the f**k up from their self-induced coma. Looks like ONE of them isn't going to wake up.

Karoline Leavitt Gives the Best Response When Asked About Tim Walz's Tesla Swipe https://t.co/E3MmRo6drW

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 19, 2025

Let's make a deal

 

Trump Agrees To Give Back Statue Of Liberty In Exchange For All The Land In France We Liberated In WWII https://t.co/m4fcy4JKhB via @TheBabylonBee --- heh

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 19, 2025

Dolphins greet astronauts' return

 

Hills to Die On: Democrats know how to pick 'em

3/19/25:

Democrats are provoking this, but why?

A theory would involve Marxism. They'd prefer a dictatorship that they could overthrow, even if it meant that they would have to do a lot to create one by their own provocations. You could save the Republic, but you'd have to destroy them as a party in order to do it.

3/18/25:

American Thinker, by Monica Showalter: 

What is it about Democrats and their urge to inflict criminals and terrorists upon us?

In their quest to Get Trump on immigration, which is probably his strongest point with the public, they've picked three migrant cause célèbres...

Comment:

Now Chief Justice Roberts is tossing his hat into this ring. It's a mistake. How's Roberts going to look when he has to either support these rogue judges, or support common sense and the public interest?

Tesla autopilot fails Wile E. Coyote test

Rename Tesla as the Acme Auto Co.

They are at least illegal aliens, even if they aren't gang members or terrorists

The courts have no legs to stand on, and the media is trying to support a questionable reach for power on the part of the radical left.

 

Media Headlines Pretend Deported Violent Gang Members Are Just ‘Migrants’ In Search Of A Better Life https://t.co/HddzogFfai

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 18, 2025

Who's trying to be dictator? Can the President be president without permission from the courts?

 

Trump Is Right To Push Back Against Judicial Supremacy https://t.co/ZtHHiSV7AU --- Indeed. It seems that the radical left has strange hills it wants to die on.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 18, 2025

House divided cannot stand

Liberalism is dividing the country against itself. One or the other must go. That is to say, liberalism must go, or its opposition must go. By the way, LIBERALS think that way. That is the basis for cancel culture. If they won't tolerate opposition, then why should WE?

The Era Of Presuming Liberal Moral Superiority Is Over https://t.co/1e8MT6b1j5 --- Liberalism delenda est.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 17, 2025

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and vice versa it seems

According to Democrats, this is the apocalypse, folks.
No really, Democrat expectations for the economy have NEVER been lower, including the global financial crisis and covid. For Democrats, this is the 10th circle of hell. pic.twitter.com/8Gie6ln9NA

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 14, 2025

Canada's problems will become our problems

Their politicians have run their country into the ground. They're using the tariffs as a rallying point to keep themselves in power. Trump stirred a pot that could've been left alone. But is there another way to look at this?

Canada will become a national security problem in any event. If they're a failed state, that's a problem too. It also appears that they're turning to Chinese narcotic trade as a tool in their bag of tricks.

Canada's reaction is also instructive. They seem to be all to willing to stir up the anti-Americanism pot. If Trump went after them militarily and set the terms that were favorable to us, then why not? These people are asking for it. Or, they could become more reasonable. How do this play out? It's not looking too good for Canada.

Democrats have no scruples

 

Sinema in favor of filibuster when it wasn't cool in the Dem party. Now the filibuster is cool, and she lets her former colleagues here about it.

 

Why Sinema Woke Up Yesterday Morning and Chose Violence Against her Old Dem Colleagues https://t.co/YJuHS3D1uE --- Woke up and smelled the rotten eggs.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) March 16, 2025