Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I believe a big chunk of that is pensions from their mandatory service. In Canada about only about 6% of seniors are veterans. Still with OAS estimated to be $100 Billion by 2028 that would still be a substantial increase.

You can easily count all of the RCMP in most of that. They are a para-miltary organziation. Their is no auditor general telling you the numbers are fudged.

It is the NATO secretariat that publishes the list, they effectively decide what counts.

How many RCMP officers are equipped as a military force? Plausibly some swat teams, maybe 1% of the force?

If every single veteran over 65 received the maximum OAS (which they almost certainly don’t) it would be 0.07% of GDP

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is the NATO secretariat that publishes the list, they effectively decide what counts.

How many RCMP officers are equipped as a military force? Plausibly some swat teams, maybe 1% of the force?

If every single veteran over 65 received the maximum OAS (which they almost certainly don’t) it would be 0.07% of GDP

Swat teams are public security, not national defence.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Swat teams are public security, not national defence.

Yes, but they could plausibly meet the NATO requirement to count as defence spending.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

And to add to this: much of the "Trumpist" foreign policy has actually continued under Biden. (With much more coherence, obviously).

And expanded in many ways. AUKUS was announced under Biden. Negotiations probably started under Trump. And Biden has redirected Trump's protectionism towards a more nuanced friendshoring policy. It's pretty clear that Americans are beginning to prioritize actual substance and contribution in a "spirit of the law" vs. "letter of the law" way. I'm not sure why anybody thinks they'd be dumb enough to fall for social pensions counting as defence spending in that construct. Not to mention that the problem for us is not NATO, but losing or diminishing our privileged access to Five Eyes, which is worth far more than NATO will ever be.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is the NATO secretariat that publishes the list, they effectively decide what counts.

How many RCMP officers are equipped as a military force? Plausibly some swat teams, maybe 1% of the force?

If every single veteran over 65 received the maximum OAS (which they almost certainly don’t) it would be 0.07% of GDP

Further to that point the New Brunswick RCMP have yet to train all members on the C-7. Ten years after the Moncton murders

[Djeffery]

London Police has a LAV from GDLS and are planning to buy a second, maybe we can count their budget into NATO as well lol.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

London Police has a LAV from GDLS and are planning to buy a second, maybe we can count their budget into NATO as well lol.

As per YOWetal logic we can just count it all and the Americans are dumb enough to buy it and simply give us access to AUKUS. Come on now....

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And expanded in many ways. AUKUS was announced under Biden. Negotiations probably started under Trump. And Biden has redirected Trump's protectionism towards a more nuanced friendshoring policy. It's pretty clear that Americans are beginning to prioritize actual substance and contribution in a "spirit of the law" vs. "letter of the law" way. I'm not sure why anybody thinks they'd be dumb enough to fall for social pensions counting as defence spending in that construct. Not to mention that the problem for us is not NATO, but losing or diminishing our privileged access to Five Eyes, which is worth far more than NATO will ever be.

Perhaps I have it wrong. My read of this is that deal was for the US all about bringing Australia into the fold give the threat of China.

The real question is given the strategic interest and involvement Canada has with US as part of NORAD our relationship should at a minimum be deeper and even more encompassing. It is not and that is concerning.

From an industrial perspective China is going down the same path as Russia.. We should expect at some point over the next 10 years China makes its move and the west ends up bringing in similar sanctions to what has happened with Russia. The US clearly understands it can not be dependent on China.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Perhaps I have it wrong. My read of this is that deal was for the US all about bringing Australia into the fold give the threat of China.

If the question was about defending against China, they didn't need such a sweeping deal. The deal they made goes well beyond what Australia beds to defend against China.

Originally Posted by casper

The real question is given the strategic interest and involvement Canada has with US as part of NORAD our relationship should at a minimum be deeper and even more encompassing. It is not and that is concerning.

Hence the shock and worry about AUKUS.

[Truenorth00]

So Trump 2.0.....

[acottawa]

I hope Clinton and Obama drop by for tea and convince him to step aside. That was an unmitigated disaster.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I hope Clinton and Obama drop by for tea and convince him to step aside. That was an unmitigated disaster.

Who is on the roster that has a realistic shot?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Who is on the roster that has a realistic shot?

At this point almost any random person on the street would be better. There are a group of governors who keep getting mentioned Newsom, Pritzker, Whitmer, Jared Polis, Shapiro.

[shreddog]

Yeah, that was hard to watch. I hate to say it, but I think that Trump "lost less" last night.

[Djeffery]

I think a Newsom/Whitmer ticket is a winner, but are the Dems really going to dump Biden and not only that but bypass the Vice President as well? Why is she even on the ticket if no one seriously considers her the heir apparent? Newsom seems to be the most talked about candidate for 2028, I rarely ever hear anyone say "Harris '28", so why is she even there now? She can't run on a ticket with Newsom and I doubt she would willingly take second fiddle anyway on that ticket (nor would Newsom take second billing to her).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I think a Newsom/Whitmer ticket is a winner, but are the Dems really going to dump Biden and not only that but bypass the Vice President as well? Why is she even on the ticket if no one seriously considers her the heir apparent? Newsom seems to be the most talked about candidate for 2028, I rarely ever hear anyone say "Harris '28", so why is she even there now? She can't run on a ticket with Newsom and I doubt she would willingly take second fiddle anyway on that ticket (nor would Newsom take second billing to her).

Could be awkward. The convention votes separately for the President and Vice President. Biden's delegates are pledged to her for the VP nomination, but not for the top of the ticket.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

At this point almost any random person on the street would be better. There are a group of governors who keep getting mentioned Newsom, Pritzker, Whitmer, Jared Polis, Shapiro.

Yes but a centrist governnor is unlikely to be the choice of the party. Maybe a brokered convention with Biden's choce of delegates gets to that result though.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes but a centrist governnor is unlikely to be the choice of the party. Maybe a brokered convention with Biden's choce of delegates gets to that result though.

What do you mean by "the party"?

If he steps aside before the convention it is Biden's pledged delegates that decide, I am not sure why Biden's delegates would oppose a centrist governor.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What do you mean by "the party"?

If he steps aside before the convention it is Biden's pledged delegates that decide, I am not sure why Biden's delegates would oppose a centrist governor.

Yes that seems likely assuming Biden chose idealogically consistent delegates which hopeully given the situation is what he did. The grasroots though also has a lot of delegates. Super delegates and just people you have to choose. It is a wildcard still. It's possible there is a pledge to only choose for example a woman of color. That leaves Harris or someone radical. Or Michelle Obama I guess.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So Trump 2.0.....

Thinking selfishly, this is actually not a bad outcome for Canada.

The Biden administration was very protectionist but also very competent and, with things like the Inflation Reduction Act subsidizing so many critical industries, really put us in a corner. Not only do I expect a lot of the subsidies for EV manufacturing to get cut - which is good for us - but under Trump the Americans were more easy to cajole when it came to trade arrangements.

Also, if Trump really does instate a 10% tarriff on anything imported into the USA, even from friendly countries, then it might make sense to assemble everything in Canada, import to the US and pay the 10% tarriff rather than to have parts move back and forth across the border. God knows the Americans will be fighting multiple trade wars with everyone, so they may not have the resources to devote to fighting us.

Individually, we also have the opportunity to get predictably rich. Trump will probably make Jared Kushner treasury secretary and then there will be a huge tax cut for the rich, and money is just going to pour into the stock market. I'm going to invest in S&P 500 index funds.

Of course, about 18 months later it's all going to go to shit, but might as well party until then.

Grab what you can on the way out, boys!