Politics

Void · 2025-03-30 11:21:12

Well, it seems that you have choices, and the choices have consequences. That is not a situation imposed by me; it is just a further observation. I am really not interested in wrecking your world.

Ending Pending

RobertDyck · 2025-03-30 12:01:20

The story of the Minotaur. Minoa ruled the Greek world for over a thousand years, roughly 3100 BC to 1450 BC. There's a story from Athens. Minoa required all the city states of Greece to pay annual tribute to Minoa. This tribute was a lot of money, plus one boy in his late teens. Athenians didn't know what Minoans did with the boy, but each year when they sent a boy, they never saw him again. They came up with wild stories. Most likely the boy became a soldier in the Minoan army; indoctrinated into Minoan culture, and trained to be a soldier. Athenians normally grabbed a boy from the most poor part of their city state, but one year the prince of Athens (son of the king) insisted that he be sent instead. He was of the right age.

::Edit:: Correction. The story says Athens was required to provide 7 young men, and 7 maidens. Athens chose them by lot, but of course only poor people in Athens had their children included in the lottery. It was supposedly a fair lottery, but do you really believe wealthy would allow their children to be taken? Again, prince Theseus demanded that he be one of the young men.

Athens came up with a lot of mythological stories, intended to teach a moral. One story was of a Minoan king. They story claims the king of Minoa was required to sacrifice a bull to the gods once per year. But number of cattle was a measure of one's wealth, so the Minoan king didn't want to. The king prayed to the gods, asking for the gods to provide a bull that he would sacrifice. The king of the gods (in Minoan mythology) gave the king of Minoa a beautiful white bull. This was the most beautiful bull the king had seen, so he didn't want to lose it. So he sacrificed one of his other bulls instead. The god was angry, the bull he provided was supposed to be sacrificed. The gods in ancient Greek mythology were petty and spiteful, so the god had revenge. The god made the king's wife (the queen) fall in love with the bull. She had sex with the bull, and got pregnant. The queen gave birth to a half-man/half-bull called the Minotaur. This abomination was born from the queen, so they didn't kill it. Instead the king had it imprisoned in a labyrinth. Realize this obviously didn't happen, modern genetics will tell you it's impossible for a bull and a human to conceive. Archaeological digs of Minoan ruins show many paintings of bulls on walls of palace buildings and pottery. For some reason they revered cattle, but Athenians were angry because they had to pay annual tribute. After Mycenae conquered Minoa, they printed coins with an image of the Minotaur, but again that was after Minoa was conquered.

In the story from Athens, when the prince arrived in the capital of Minoa, the Minoan king's daughter fell in love with the Athenian prince. The prince and princess were about the same age. The Athenian story claimed the arrival from Athens was sent into the labyrinth to be killed and eaten by the Minotaur. The princess didn't want to see this young boy killed because she had a crush on him. So she gave him a ball of twine. The prince was able to use the ball of twine to trace his way through the labyrinth and get out. In the story, the prince killed the Minotaur, killed the Minoan king, then set fire to the Minoan palace.

Archaeologists have found several palaces on the island of Crete. Minoa existed for so long, that the palace moved from time to time. Each palace occupied for centuries. The last one was Knossos. The archaeological dig has revealed a massive and beautiful palace, and it has charcoal and signs the building was destroyed by fire. Is the story of the Minotaur true? Well, more likely the Mycenaean army burnt it down when they conquered, many years or centuries after this story was set.

The Minoans were not the first civilization to demand tribute. Babylon did it long before the Minoans. And Sumeria did it long before Babylon. But there are many stories of the oppressed fighting back. Donald Trump thinks tariffs are the modern version of Tribute. It isn't, that's not how tariffs work. But Trump is trying to treat other nations of the free world as if they're vassal states. The story of the Minotaur should be a warning: don't do that.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-03-30 12:28:12)

kbd512 · 2025-03-30 14:37:44

RobertDyck,

Nobody is "demanding tribute" from Canada. You seem to think extreme dollar value trade deficits are tolerable forever. President Trump is letting all of our allies and adversaries know, in no uncertain terms, that they're not. If Canada ran a 50 billion dollar trade deficit with the US, year-over-year, into perpetuity, and it was hollowing out Canada's workforce, then Canada's leadership would or at least should reconsider their trade relationship with the US for the sake of their own people. If true equality feels like discrimination, then you're saying you want to be special. What does "being special" entail?

You've publicly voiced your disdain for the US, repeatedly. You blame the US for the failures of Canada's leadership, as if we're somehow responsible for the decisions they made on their own, for their own reasons. We're not responsible. Take a look in the mirror, and there is where the answer to your problems is most frequently found. Canada's leadership is now being forced to behave more responsibly, and they don't like it. That's not an America problem, it's a Canada problem.

If I blamed Canada for the poor state of American roads, because Canada refused to sell their tar to America, or charged a higher price than what domestic production could produce, I would look ridiculous, because that is ridiculous. We should be making our own tar if we want roads, not blaming Canada because they're choosing to sell their tar to their preferred customer at their preferred price. I would look upon any American blaming Canada for that state of affairs as refusing to accept personal responsibility and acting accordingly.

I don't blame Canada's leaders for negotiating trade relationships favorable to Canada. That is what I expect Canadian leadership to do. Similarly, I don't blame America's leaders for negotiating trade relationships favorable to America, because that is what I expect our leaders to do. If they did something else, and for the longest time they did, then I would eventually expect Americans to get rid of those leaders and try someone new. That is precisely what Americans voted for.

The Democrats have been the dominant political party over my entire adult lifetime, even when Republicans were sometimes elected. The only reason they lost power was due to their behavior in office, with respect to doing what was best for the majority of their constituents, rather than the obnoxious but vocal minority who always put their own special interests over the good of everyone else. When Democrats say, "they're ruining our democracy", I don't know who they're actually talking about, because they lost both the majority and plurality of voters over their policies. The only Americans left who were willing to go along with what they were selling were some of their wealthy corporate donors and their ideological extremists. Everyone else told the Democrats that they went off the reservation.

RobertDyck · 2025-03-30 15:44:41

United States Trade Representative: Canada Trade Summary

U.S. total goods trade with Canada were an estimated $762.1 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to Canada in 2024 were $349.4 billion, down 1.4 percent ($5.0 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from Canada in 2024 totaled $412.7 billion, down 1.4 percent ($5.9 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $63.3 billion in 2024, a 1.4 percent decrease ($926.9 million) over 2023.

All in US dollars. Deficit in 2024 was $63.3B but total trade $762.1B. That means deficit was 8.3%, that's a rounding error. Trade deficit with between US and Vietnam reached $123.5 billion that same year.

The way trade works, the US may buy more goods from Canada than it sells. (Small amount) Canada buys more goods from Taiwan then it sells. (Eg computer processors, video processors, solid state hard drives, etc) Taiwan buys more goods from the US than it sells. (Eg lasers for processor manufacturing machines) Money flows, it doesn't have to be perfectly matched between just two people, or just two countries. This is what money is for, it isn't barter.

RobertDyck · 2025-03-30 17:34:29

YouTube short (2.5 minutes): Sometimes, lies do the job

This guy is optimistic. This video is dated March 6, so it's already 24 days old. Would be nice if it was that simple.

kbd512 · 2025-03-30 17:58:47

RobertDyck,

Adding up all the trade deficits that the US has with all the nations we trade with, and it's no longer a rounding error. That is part of why President Trump was re-elected to office. If all the trade deficits the US has with other nations only run in a direction unfavorable to the US, every single year, then eventually the money is gone and the manufacturing workforce is decimated. That is precisely what has happened to the US, because our Democrats have devised a system that is ultimately self-destructive. We're moving away from that system of trade, because it no longer makes sense for the American worker. When that system was devised, the Democrats told us how much it would benefit Americans. It did the exact opposite of what they claimed.

Every trade policy our neocons and neolibs (these people don't behave like actual Democrats or Republicans) have come up with during my lifetime has done the exact opposite of what they've claimed it would do. We, the ordinary American people, are sick of the nonsense by our monied class. I don't care how cheaply they can buy foreign goods and materials. They ought to be doing business with their own fellow Americans, even if that means they can only afford one super yacht instead of two. We want our own industrial base, which includes our own mining, energy, heavy industry, tech manufacturing, and medicine.

Let's use a concrete example that I think is asinine:

Canada produces lots of heavy crude from their oil sands, which they pump into the US. I think it's great that Canadians have such an abundant supply of oil and natural gas that they cannot even use all of it.

Does the US really need to consume Canadian crude when Europe is hurting for oil and gas, or should they have built pipelines to pump Canadian crude to tanker ships bound for Europe?

We raised the local energy prices on people here in America, who could least afford the price increases, by choosing to ship our NGLs to Europe. Why did President Biden's administration do that to his fellow Americans? If Canada had their own pipelines, Canadians would've profited handsomely from what was going on in Europe, and Canadians are tied into Europe in a way that virtually all Americans, apart from our coastie champagne liberals, are not. Our coasties were smugly pleased with themselves while their less well-to-do American brethren suffered terribly. Frankly, I find their behavior repulsive. Canadian energy prices wouldn't have gone up a penny because they have an enormous supply glut that they require foreign purchasers to consume.

I don't blame Canada at all for what transpired, but I do blame our leadership for enabling that state of affairs.

American crude oil refineries should have made the switch to consume light sweet shale oil at least a decade ago, rather than heavy crude. We should have converted our diesel engines to run on natural gas liquids, which we have coming out the wazoo. If we do need heavy crude for certain products, such as tar for roads, then we do have our own oil sands and heavy crude wells here in America, which our own neocons and neolibs refused to allow American companies to start using.

Why is it that we should not consume what we locally produce?

Why is it that Canadian crude should be pumped half-way across America, only to be sent back to Canada and Europe as refined products, when Canada has all the people, know-how, and money to refine and pump their own products?

Does any of that make any sense to you?

Why have we made ourselves so co-dependent in such absurd ways, and worse than that, co-dependent on countries and people who hate America?

It makes no sense. It was yet another attempt by our self-serving globalists to exploit people, rather than being forced to pay their workers living wages so that they could continue to raise the next generation of Canadians, Americans, Chinese, etc. It's asinine and ultimately self-defeating. It only works in a wildly distorted market where national security and prosperity interests are subservient to multi-national corporations. Our security interests either align or they don't. Trade should never be part of security decision making, and wouldn't be if nations were self-sufficient and corporations were not allowed to behave in ways that violate national sovereignty and security. If our corporations or their monied share holders are not allowed to place their financial interests ahead of national interests, and we all have our own infrastructure so we're not co-dependent, then we can choose to go our separate ways if our interests don't align, there's no hard feelings over it, and no incentive to start or maintain wars over foreign resources when domestic production is sufficient to cover domestic consumption.

That is how a well-functioning economy would work, and global trade would only take place when and where it made good economic sense, with the express understanding that the American government isn't going to start a war merely because some trade-based company made a bad financial bet by offshoring their operations to a foreign country. That should apply to oil, computers, cell phones, washers and dryers, everything. That kind of foreign policy would do more than anything else to discourage wars.

We'd still have bad actors like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, but their ability to adversely influence the global economy would be functionally nonexistent. What would China be able to influence militarily without their hundreds of billions of dollars of international trade? Where would the Chinese get the computers to design and operate advanced weaponry, had we not given all that stuff to them? It was pure idiocy to not anticipate what they would do, because it's the same thing that the Russians attempted to do with the handful of advanced computers they obtained from western sources, which they were never able to locally replicate.

kbd512 · 2025-03-31 11:02:20

China requires residents to obtain a government-issued photo ID card at age 16. Someone recently hacked China's national ID card database and posted the entire database online. It contained entries for 760 million people. By extrapolating the number of people younger than 16 years of age using census data, then assuming their census data is valid, which it may not be, China's total population is around 850 million, plus or minus about 20 million people. If any database entries have been fraudulently maintained to obtain money from the government for people who are no longer alive, then China's real total population figure could be as low as 700 million. Japanese demographers came to this same conclusion in a completely different way, by estimating China's total salt consumption, which is drastically lower than it was 5 years ago. Regardless, China's actual population figure is nowhere near 1.4 billion people. That is a very ominous sign of things to come, since fertility rates are well below replacement levels in virtually all industrialized nations. Even the most recent demographics data coming out of India and Africa is not looking so hot these days. The population and fertility rate data coming out of Europe, Russia, most of the rest of Asia, and South America is grim. Only certain nations in Africa and the Middle East appear to show fertility rates above replacement levels.

By the year 2100, which I won't live to see, although my children might, we'd be doing great if there were 5 billion people left in the entire world. At the moment, total global population is taking a nosedive off a cliff. Some of it is purely aging out of existence. I could not figure out why so many people lost their minds over COVID, but perhaps I was very mistaken about just how bad it really was in the rest of the world, China in particular. I knew it was a real problem, but I thought COVID was treated with more hysteria than pragmatism. We likely won't recover from whatever transpired during COVID for another 300 years, remarkably similar to what happened following The Black Death. There is plenty of historical precedent for what is happening right now, but not within living memory. You have to be a student of history to understand what we're bearing witness to, because this has happened before, but not since the Middle Ages.

We don't have economic models for how this new world works. Peter Zeihan is absolutely correct on that point. Some of his other predictions appear to be more about his personal beliefs than independently verifiable demographics and economic data, but he's not wrong about us not having any economic models to navigate these unsettled times, because we've never experienced a period of global population decline since The Black Death.

Could the mass migration, the Russian war in Ukraine, and the looming Chinese war against Taiwan be more about "people grabs" than "land / resource grabs"?

Perhaps. It's a definite possibility.

One thing is absolutely certain.

Our Malthusian "population bomb" adherents are completely wrong in their beliefs about over-population. Whatever they're on about, it has no bearing on current demographics reality. Humanity is not disappearing, but total human population is never going to hit 10 billion at the rate we're going. The UN's 2025 8.2 billion population estimate is already "off" by at least 700 million people for the reason explained above. A growing number of demographers are now starting to question official UN population figures for several other major nations besides China, particularly Russia, various South American countries such as Brazil, and a number of African countries, for which census data is out-of-date by over 20 years in certain cases.

Why is it that least self-aware, least compassionate, and least qualified (refusal to acknowledge any data which disagrees with their beliefs) amongst us are driving our governance policies?

How do you completely convince yourself of something that is so obviously wrong?

Beyond that, where are these people driving us to, besides into oblivion?

This giant chasm between personal belief and plainly observable reality is what I mean by "being educated into stupidity". Advanced education was supposed to be "the great equalizer", a bulwark against self-destruction, rather than the cause of it. We have far too many people who believe themselves to be infallibly educated. They steadfastly believe mathematically false things, which require no advanced degree or special expertise to understand. Ideology has replaced math and science. They should have no power or say-so over public policy. The track record of their predictions' alignment with objective reality is abysmal. These people retain their unearned power and privilege because we're unwilling to tell them that their advanced degrees are useless when they ignore their own data.

We need to stop teaching our children that they should not have families, that the best thing they can do to "save the planet" is to spend money on trinkets and die alone, that they should mutilate their bodies, and that the world is ending because the temperature went up or down by a degree or two. This is all errant nonsense with no grounding in reality. You're not "saving" anything if nobody is around to bear witness to what you've "saved".

kbd512 · 2025-03-31 13:32:59

The Net Zero Delusion Part 1: Mark Mills

Here's the rub of it. The quantity of metals and minerals you need to deliver a unit of energy to society, using wind and solar machines, and batteries, is increased by 1,000 to 7,000 percent over the quantity of metals and minerals you need to build the machines of the hydrocarbon era. Huge increase in metals and minerals are required to deliver the same quantity of energy. - Professor Mark P. Mills.

These green energy machines can be up to 75% efficient at converting stored energy into useful work output, rather than 50% efficient as is the case for modern diesel engines, but where I'm from a 25% net efficiency increase, well-to-wheels as they say, doesn't come close to resolving that enormous embodied energy increase of 1,000%, into the required metals and minerals, never mind 7,000%. It's a gross distortion of energy reality, which is why net hydrocarbon fuel energy consumption has only decreased from 86% of the total global primary energy supply, to 84%, while the total quantity of hyrocarbon fuel consumed has drastically increased, relative to when this non-transition started.

That means all these electrical / electronic green energy machines are horrendously inefficient when total energy input per unit of energy output is considered. They're so bad at total energy efficiency that it's frightening to consider that anyone actually thought these things were going to replace combustion engines. It's pure idiocy wrapped in the flag of environmentalism and climate change, as if that somehow makes ignoring the fundamentals of economy an "okay thing to do".

Real economy is the economy of energy / labor / materials consumption. Real capital is a derivative product of the confluence of consuming energy, labor, and materials to do something that the people think is worthwhile. We've spent somewhere between 5 to 10 trillion dollars to permit green energy machines to augment, rather than replace, 2% of the total global primary energy supply. There has been a net consumption increase in all forms of energy to achieve this, most especially hydrocarbon fuels.

Edit:
Wind and solar currently account for 3% of our total global primary energy supply. That is quite an accomplishment, and I don't want to downplay the achievement, but to think we're going to reach 70% of the total energy mix in the next 10 years is grossly delusional.

Last edited by kbd512 (2025-03-31 13:36:35)

Calliban · Yesterday 07:18:49

The industrial system of the western world, its infrastructure and working arrangements, grew into its present form using coal power, later substituted by oil, natural gas and uranium. All of these energy sources are controllable, energy dense and available 24/7 and 365 days per year. The western world is now trying to move away from those convenient energy sources and onto ambient energy sources, primarily wind and solar energy, which has comparatively low energy density and is highly variable, both regionally and temporally. What is more, we are trying to use technology to make those ambient energy sources fit the needs of a system that grew to depend on the abundant stored energy of fossil fuels and uranium. Unsurprisingly, it isn't going too well. Technology may help us adapt to low density, intermittent energy. Electricity for example, allows energy to be transmitted over long distances. But it cannot change the nature of the resource.

Next week I will be touring a country that really did build an industrial economy and a global maritime trading empire, using a mixture of wind and biomass energy. Up until the 20th century, fossil fuels had had a minimal impact on the Dutch economy. Wind provided most of the mechanical power they needed, substituted by human and animal power. Transportation was largely water based. This was energy efficient, if not speedy. Wood provided the input to iron and brick manufacture. Wood was used to build ships and windmills. The wind was directly used to drain the land, allowing agriculture.

But this was a very different world to the one we now live in. People were very much poorer and they lived simpler lives. Life was more local. Historical Dutch cities are compact out of necessity. They needed to be small enough for people to walk around and deliver goods via water or horse pulled wagons. Industry was on a smaller scale. The largest Dutch tower mills provided about 100kW of power in a good wind. The workers had to work with the weather. This meant long shifts with little sleep during periods of high wind. It meant no or little work during periods without wind. Many mill workers were farmers who would work the fields in low winds and work the mills when the wind came. Transportation using the wind was slow and unreliable. It often took Dutch ships 6 months to reach the East Indies. When the wind dropped too low, ships could be stranded in duldrums for weeks at a time. At other times, stormy weather would be a hazard to ships carrying too much sail.

My impression is that it is physically possible to build a modern economy that uses the sun and wind as its main sources of power. But it isn't going to be practical to run the sort of JIT, 40-hour a week lifestyle that we have grown accustomed to. And the problem the no one really acknowledges is that RE is highly regional. The UK and Holland experience strong winds for much of the year. But most parts of the world do not. In Texas, there is enough direct solar energy to provide heat and power to industry for much of the year. But that won't be true in Western Europe. And it isn't the case for most of the temperate regions where people live. So a world running on renewable energy will produce different results depending upon where you are. Many parts of the world (i.e China and India) are not well served by either wind or solar power and yet many millions of people living in these places need energy to survive. The waterways of England and Holland were only possible because both have a relatively flat topography. They allow slow but highly energy efficient transportation of goods. But that strategy would be useless in most other places. Water based transport works in the eastern half of the US and could be used a lot more. But it is unworkable in most of the western US, Canada and Mexico. Nuclear powerplants can be built almost anywhere. But wind turbines only work well in places where there is good wind. Solar power works best where there is a lot of direct sunlight.

Much of the world doesn't have either of those things. A world run on renewable energy would be a very unequal world. Some parts of it could maintain a reasonably affluent way of life, because they happen to benefit from a local abundance of wind or sun and geography works in their favour. Other places won't do well at all. I find it ironic that it is people on the Left, who are supposedly concerned about issues of equality, that tend to be most in favour of renewable energy. It is by its nature a resource that will produce entirely different prospects depending upon where you are lucky or unlucky enough to be born. Nuclear power on the other hand, is the great equaliser!

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 08:17:16)

Void · Yesterday 08:53:30

I think you are very correct Calliban.

The great technology gap is in dealing with intermittent energy, when everything we have is submerged in relatively continuous energy supplies.

I think we would well do invest in both fission and fusion. A breakthrough in fusion might be just the ticket for the Earth and to leave the Earth.

Of course Space Solar also could be of merit. I know the UK has been looking into that.

Ending Pending

RobertDyck · Yesterday 13:53:24

kbd512,
Many decades ago, American car manufacturers wanted to sell cars into Canada. The government required cars to be manufactured in Canada for sale in Canada. That was a long time ago. Over time, manufacturers wanted to create efficiency. Instead of manufacturing a model-T Ford in Canada, and the same model car in a separate factory in the United States, they asked permission to manufacture one model of car in one factory. Most people think the US has 10 times the population of Canada, but at least since 1960 the US had 9 times. So a simple example.

One factory in Canada makes one model of car. That factory sells 1 car of that model within Canada, but exports 9 cars to the US. The US has factories that make 9 models of car. Of each model made, 1 car is exported to Canada, the other 9 sold within the US. That's a total of 9 cars from Canada to the US, and 9 the other way. Within the US, 9 cars sold of each model. Within Canada, 1 car sold of each model. It's fair and balanced. Car manufacturers asked permission to do this, and they got it.

Integration went further. One manufacturer casts pistons. Another company machines those pistons to exact size for a particular model of engine, with several size pistons, one for each model of piston. Another company assembles engines, inserting those pistons. Why duplicate? Instead each company is highly specialized. Some companies in Canada, some in the US. But trade goes both ways.

If that didn't happen, there would have to be duplication. If Trump forces all manufacturing for all cars and all car parts to move from Canada to the US, then Canada will not allow American cars to be imported into Canada. Car companies will have to set up factories in Canada that duplicate everything, to manufacture cars in Canada for use in Canada. That's duplication, and that's stupid.

I'll give real-world examples. Here in Winnipeg where I live, there are two factories that manufacture busses. No car factories, just busses. New Flyer manufactures busses for city transit. Motor Coach Industries (MCI) manufactures highway busses. New Flyer uses steel rod and steel tubing from a smelter in Canada. Canada has several smelters, Stelco is a major smelter in Canada; they get ore from Minnesota, and coal from West Virginia. New Flyer gets engines from Detroit, and tires from Goodyear. Windshield and window glass from a major manufacturer in the US.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 14:08:25

YouTube: The American Reindustrialization - A (Stalled) Progress Report || Peter Zeihan

Peter Zeihan has been warning of a problem in China. Their One-Child policy created a major demographic problem. Now they have as many retired people as working people, and over the next decade it will be more retired than working. The Chinese government responded by changing their One-Child policy to Two-Children, then Three, then they allowed parents to have as many as they want. But it's too little, too late. Another problem was moving the majority of their population to cities with giant apartment tower buildings. Most Chinese people live in an efficiency apartment with no yard, so no room to raise children. So their birth rate continues to crash. Peter Zeihan believes over the next decade, China won't have enough working people to man factories. So manufactured goods the US gets from China will not be available any more.

Manufacturers have looked to move factories out of China, but rather than moving back to the US, they're looking for other third-world countries with cheap labour. Biden tried to encourage moving back to the US, but moving factories is expensive and slow. And moving a large number of factories will require power, so expansion of power generation.

If Trump wants to rush this, putting tariffs on China and other third world countries would make sense. Putting tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and Europe does not. As Peter Zeihan says in this video, Trump Tariffs have convinced major investors that USA is not reliable. When tax and regulatory environment changes rapidly, business that have to invest billions of dollars in new facilities that take years to build and more years to earn profits to recover that investment? Business and investors cannot invest in the US. So Trump Tariffs are slowing the process of re-shoring manufacturing. Trump Tariffs are having the opposite effect that Trump claims.

Another real-world example: one company has put in great effort during COVID years to shift suppliers from overseas to North America. But with Trump imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, that company has to shift to get supplies from China. Not from America, from China. Isn't that backwards?

Void · Yesterday 17:57:17

Well, you guys have given us reason not to trust you. If Europe went Napolean or Hitler, who would you stand with? We cannot know. Wars will not be the same as was, but still evaluating critical war resources, I am afraid that we may want them in our hands.

China and the USA have something in common. The USA has a good market which both might use.
While Peter Zeihan has pronounced about China and USA demographics his analysis of Robots says that that will not be enough if you don't have a young generation. But we may have sufficient of that.

China, the USA, Europe, and maybe Canada, are all involved in the new creation of Humanoid Robots. While they could be used in war, if China makes them and can make cheep goods with them, then we may choose to import them. But of course, we are going to want to have massive robot labor here as well.

If anyone invents anything cleaver in robots, you can expect that such trade secretes will move around the globe within years of time. Just knowing that entity 1 was able to make something work, will suggest to other entities that it can be done and that an investment in the discovery of it will be worth it to keep completive.

And here is something on the world OIL market: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR
Quote:

China's largest OIL company says demand will crash because of EVs
YouTube
The Electric Viking
59.2K views
3 days ago

East Asia has a vulnerability for Oil, it is national security level. So, unlike North America, they will probably go full on for electric cars.

So, the world is going to change. Having a market for manufactured goods, and things like OIL, are going to make the USA and maybe Mexico, will have attractive markets. That is why tariffs, are now gaining popularity.

It remains to be seen if Canada can maintain much of a market. Maybe if your immigrants have children, but then how Canadian they are may not be a good story for you. Are you sure they will hate the USA and so much be loyal to Canada? Well, I don't know.

So, to get our stuff, we may likely still be able to depend on other countries, due to robots. And to get robots, we can make them ourselves, or maybe we can also buy them from other countries.

Back to OIL, we can afford to punish Venezuela, as there will be plenty of Oil between Russia, Opec, and North America.

It may be that these three oil producers will seek to kill other oil producers as well who have a record of being troublemakers on the international scene.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 18:15:44)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 18:17:43

Void wrote:

Well, you guys have given us reason not to trust you. If Europe went Napolean or Hitler, who would you stand with?

That's ironic considering Putin is copying Hitler's playbook, and Trump appears to be siding with Putin. How could USA side with the new Hitler? That makes no sense, and tells all of America's allies that they cannot trust you.

Void · Yesterday 18:23:40

It is not that way. Hitler was a product of fascism which was being entertained in the west. The convergence of Italy and Germany, makes Hitler a product of southern Europe, not the North.

Germans are almost equally amounts of the Anatolian Farmer descent and the Steppe peoples, with some Hunter Gatherer thrown in. The whole Aryan thing was a deceit, to capture the northern peoples as willing cannon fodder for the southern effort.

As then is as is now. Russia is Russia.

Ending Pending

RobertDyck · Yesterday 20:49:31

Putin is a dictator. Hitler was a dictator. Hitler invaded the Rhineland in March 1936. Rhineland had been lost by Germany to France in World War 1. Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia in August 1938. Germany used resources of Austria to attack Czechoslovakia. Then used resources of Czechoslovakia to invade Poland in September 1939. Putin invaded Chechnya, annexed it. Invaded Georgia, annexed 2 oblasts. Then he invaded Ukraine. Putin will use resourced from Ukraine to invade Poland. Same thing.

Hitler claimed one reason he annexed Sudetenland was to "protect German speaking people". Putin claimed he invaded east Ukraine to "protect Russian speaking people".

Below is the maximum extent of Nazi Germany. Defeating Germany in World War 2 would have been easier if they were stopped long before they got this big. Now Putin is invading. Putin will conquer and subjugate all of Europe, if he isn't stopped. It's equivalent to 1938.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 21:54:51

Trump should cancel his aluminum deal with Russia. You don't want to give Russia any money, keep sanctions in place until Russia stops invading Ukraine. Canada is the 3rd largest producer of aluminum, and supplies the vast majority of aluminum to the US. Just eliminate sanctions on Canadian aluminum. Besides, almost all Canadian aluminum is smelted in Quebec. The American company Alcoa owns/operates smelters in Quebec that produces half of that province's aluminum. And Alcoa owns 75% of the second largest aluminum smelting company in Quebec. That company produces 23% of Quebec's aluminum. So what's the point?

kbd512 · Today 05:03:03

RobertDyck,

When trade only runs in a direction unfavorable to the US, across every nation America trades with, then it's no longer beneficial to American workers, who need jobs every bit as badly as Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese workers. Jobs provide the income people require to buy the products they need. It's organic rather than artificial economy. That's what this is really about. You may view it as "stupid duplication of effort", but I view it as self-sufficiency that disincentivizes anti-social behavior amongst the monied class of people in every country. Globalism succeeded in making rich people richer, but it was / is objectively terrible for everyone else.

I want the US, Canada, and Mexico to have their own complete local infrastructure. That's how you ensure your own people have jobs. If we trade anything, it should be the result of either a dramatic production cost difference or the impossibility of local production due to the absence of some key material, technology, or training. Canada already has its own farms, mines, metals foundries, education, health care, etc. Canada should have its own refineries, too. I want the same thing for America. You may view this as "stupid duplication", but I do not, and neither does President Trump.

I'm perfectly happy to never export another car to any other country. I view that as a wasteful byproduct of globalism, a pointless option for sake of having more options to distract peoples' attention from choices that actually matter. If Canadians drive Canadian-made cars and Americans drive American-made cars, then I have no issue with that. My life hasn't been meaningfully improved by having a Japanese or German vs American car.

Calliban · Today 06:20:56

kbd512 wrote:

RobertDyck,
When trade only runs in a direction unfavorable to the US, across every nation America trades with, then it's no longer beneficial to American workers, who need jobs every bit as badly as Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese workers. Jobs provide the income people require to buy the products they need. It's organic rather than artificial economy. That's what this is really about. You may view it as "stupid duplication of effort", but I view it as self-sufficiency that disincentivizes anti-social behavior amongst the monied class of people in every country. Globalism succeeded in making rich people richer, but it was / is objectively terrible for everyone else.
I want the US, Canada, and Mexico to have their own complete local infrastructure. That's how you ensure your own people have jobs. If we trade anything, it should be the result of either a dramatic production cost difference or the impossibility of local production due to the absence of some key material, technology, or training. Canada already has its own farms, mines, metals foundries, education, health care, etc. Canada should have its own refineries, too. I want the same thing for America. You may view this as "stupid duplication", but I do not, and neither does President Trump.
I'm perfectly happy to never export another car to any other country. I view that as a wasteful byproduct of globalism, a pointless option for sake of having more options to distract peoples' attention from choices that actually matter. If Canadians drive Canadian-made cars and Americans drive American-made cars, then I have no issue with that. My life hasn't been meaningfully improved by having a Japanese or German vs American car.

Robert, there is your answer. What Kbd512 has explained does make sense when considering the direction that global demographic trends and resource depletion are taking. Canada has a relatively old population. That makes it very export dependant. The US is in a position to build a more self-sufficient economy, with production and consumption both domestically based. Aggregate GDP will be lower and certain goods will be more expensive. But it is possible for them. And it will distribute wealth more evenly. It will be more difficult for Canada. Needless to say, this new arrangement burns NAFTA to the ground.

If Canada, UK, Australia and NZ were run by conservative administrations with brains, then now would be a good time to impliment a CANZUK arrangement, probably with Canada as its leading member. Although all four nations have similar demographic issues, a shared market of 140 million first world consumers, is a lot more better than trying to rely on purely national consumer bases for each of these nations. For defence and space exploration, these nations have enough collective resources and expertise to do very well. The problem is, they are spread across the Earth.

Last edited by Calliban (Today 06:29:40)

Void · Today 08:10:42

I think that globalization is naturally against local representation. If power centers develop in special places in the world, then they very well will answer to the wants and needs of a local population.

More locally as an example I favor solar panels, as it can give a person, community, state, or nation, more local power. Even if it were only 5% of the power consumed, in emergencies, that 5% could be very important.

I ran into this this morning about Canada: https://www.youtube.com/live/LRo_u0SAr7o
Quote:

Immigration Bubble IMPLODES! Shocking Data Revealed.
Market Mania ??
71.6K subscribers

This may be of value to the USA, as we can do green cards and evaluate potential new citizens on the content of their character, and they will have been partially assimilated to a western culture already.

I have been thinking about what the "West" is, and how the different parts have taken different pathways over my lifetime.

Europe(West), Canada, USA.

WWII devastated Europe, and killed a lot of British and Commonwealth men. (Not to mention Germany and the USSR). The USA did not lose that many men population wise.

The USA felt it had to open its markets to Europe(west), to do the P.Z. bribe.

The American Oil ran out for a time, and then money flowed from the "West" to other places, mostly the Muslim Middle East.

Most western nations decided to throw a party, and live large and not have children. The USA was not quite as much into that as the others.

Party time got particularly intensive when the Soviet Block fell apart and as Peter Zeihan said an empire worth of commodities because available on the cheap.

This did break the OPEC monopoly and took away some of the Muslim world's income. But the enormous money previously and continuingly accrued to that part of the world has facilitated a cultural inertia. I do not hate them, but they are not us, so naturally they try to bend reality to their comfort, and that is not necessarily quite to our comfort.

American Shale showed up and now the USA has been getting some petroleum money, but the inertia of the Muslim money is immense.

Then our globalists tried to reverse things. The Biden type preferred to make money by importing M.E. Oil, this is probably a very selfish costal subset of Americans, that are not that American. So, they tried to kill shale, and had be for some time, using the left to try to get it done.

Then the shut off Russian Oil or tried to because oil importers to the west make their money by getting Oil from the M.E. which is most Undemocratic (Representative Local).

So, globalism is at its heart anti American, and Oil importers are "Judas Goats" making money by bringing Americans and other oil importers to the slaughterhouse.

This is a Un-American, Non-Nativist power force, which using leftist hate of America, and Elitist Un-Amercan greed, to keep the Americans on the meat hooks. This power center is more in the Democratic party than the Republican party for now. We can expect a lot of foreign Elites have been assistive to this damage to the interests of Americans and the USA. And no wonder, they hate tariffs.

Then there was the corporate and hostile foreign meddling in reproductive processes. Trying to stop the west from having children and also trying to make middle class families have multiple wage earners, as an absolute necessity. This gave more servants to the enemy to suck money from, and reduced the burden to a society to raise children. Of course this allowed more money to be siphoned off.

Feminism played a role in this. Selfish, evil, good, productive. These can be applied to females as easily to males. But it is typical that most people will seek ease for themselves, perhaps at the cost to others around them.

Feminism simply offers a stick to the female and suggests she is entitled to hit people with it to get what she wants. And of course, the male will behave similar if given that offer.

But my own theory has it that the compulsion of females is to procreate, and to obtain wealth. To perpetuate genes. Males do the same thing but in different ways.

Female choice in mating leads to the stone age, in my opinion. She wishes to extract wealth from submissive men and other women, daddy, and mommy. But her preferred mating partner is the "Dominant Man", not the "Capable Man".

In the stone age where there is a lesser technology and bashing in heads leads more to wealth, the "Dominant Man" is closer to the "Capable Man".

Males to some extent may look for advanced features in females. Neoteny. This allows for a more gracile population. Probably a more "Capable" population, capable of technological advancement for the amplification of the production of wealth.

And of course, the enemy has done everything to exploit this situation.

But that was the world since WWII. I believe we are in a new turning, which is a mirror of 4 turnings previous, and that it is entirely correct that we do things very different in this new set of 4 turnings.

We are not returning to the Savanah where persistence hunting and cannibalism gave profit to genes, so we need to change our ways as that is no place we should want to inhabit.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Today 08:52:35)

kbd512 · Today 09:00:06

So you can hear it from the former US Trade Representative, instead of me:

Bob Lighthizer: Everything You Need to Know About Trump's Tariffs and Fixing America’s Working Class

All the former British colonies have common cause and share common interests. America is a special case, being a former colony that generally considered themselves Americans first. We have our own unique ways of doing things that don't neatly fit into the British system, whereas Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are more neatly-aligned with the British system than America ever was.

As it relates to defense, our interests are generally congruent with the interests of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, but even there we will encounter "edge cases" where we don't align, which is why we all need our own defense industrial bases to draw upon. If Australia, Canada, or New Zealand were ever attacked, you're too silly to take seriously if you actually believe that President Trump won't support your nation in time of war, but the way the American military does things may not be the way the rest of you want them done, hence the reason for all of us having our own credible local defense. All of your nations continue to receive full access to American military tech and full technical support.

When it comes to joint defense projects like the F-35, both the American government and Lockheed-Martin thought that every participating nation would build their own F-35 factories. Only the Italians ever followed-through by building their own factory. Yes, it cost them some money to build, but that money created local jobs, local taxes, and locally-produced F-35s tweaked to the desires of the Italian military, to defend Italy. For some reason, everyone else said, oh no no no, you're going to produce the model that the Americans military gets.

Lock-Mart said, "Okay Uncle Sam, it's your call since you're paying the bills, but now there's a new deal on the table. We have to produce everyone else's jets as well, and we cannot appear to favor supplying our military, so all of our prospective Air Force / Marine Corps / Navy F-35 pilots are going to have to wait to receive their new jets while we fill those additional orders that we never agreed to, because we already had a deal regarding where the jets would be produced, which was not at Fort Worth. All of you collectively reneged on our previous deal, so we never built additional capacity at our F-35 factory to produce additional jets for partner nations. We cannot wave a wand to create extra production capacity, and you're not providing more money to expand production capacity, so we're stuck with our present production rate."

That's yet another example where globalism hurt all of us. Rather than proceeding with the build-out of the necessary local infrastructure, we have parts suppliers from all over the planet shipping parts of the jet to the factory in Fort Worth, because that idiotic globalism idea stopped them from building their own local fighter jet factories. After the jet gets assembled, it then has to be flown half-way around the world to wherever it's going to be used, and if something goes seriously wrong, then it has to be flown back to the factory. That idiotic system slowed down F-35 production for everyone, no efficiencies of any kind were achieved, and it made each jet more expensive, not less. That, ladies and gents, is retarded.

RobertDyck · Today 10:00:01

Calliban wrote:

kbd512 wrote:
RobertDyck,
When trade only runs in a direction unfavorable to the US, across every nation America trades with, then it's no longer beneficial to American workers, who need jobs every bit as badly as Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese workers.
Robert, there is your answer.

I'm sorry you didn't understand what I already posted. Trade is NOT in one direction. Trade IS balanced. In fact, other than energy products, Canada buys more from the US that the US exports to Canada. The US produces most of the oil that the US needs, but not enough. The US must import oil to meet demand. 60% to 62% (depending on source) of all imported oil comes from Canada. Not 60% of all oil the US uses, just 60% of imports. That's more than all other countries combined. The second greatest supplier of oil is Mexico, at 8% of imports. Saudi Arabia is 3rd at 7%. If you don't like buying copious quantities of cheap oil, we could increase the price. I'm don't know how that would "help" the trade "deficit". I have to put quotes around "deficit", because trade between US and Canada IS balanced.

Last night I saw an interview with one US Congressman from Pennsylvanian. He said he intends to fight hard for his district. However, penalizing Canada is not the right direction. The US needs to impost tariffs on Mexico, China, and other 3rd world nations, not Canada.

Brian lives in Texas; although he isn't in the oil industry, that affects Texas. The US built refineries to process oil pumped from American oil wells. That used to be heavy sour oil. The term "sour" when talking about oil means there's a significant amount of sulphur. But conventional oil wells were pumped dry a long time ago. Fracking technology allows harvesting oil from shale deposits, but it's light sweet crude. "Light" meaning lighter oil, and "sweet" means less or no sulphur. Refineries were built for heavy sour oil; processing light sweet crude requires tearing the refinery apart and rebuilding it. That costs a lot of money, and the refinery would be shut down and not selling product during the conversion. Rather than pay that, American refineries rather buy Canadian oil, and sell American light sweet crude overseas. But even if American refineries were converted, American production still wouldn't be enough to supply the American market.

When George W. Bush was President, he engaged in a major project. Ensure the US gets all of its oil from a combination of domestic production, Canada and Mexico. So North America is independent for oil. Obama/Biden screwed it up. Some environmental activists in California complained that Canadian oil is "icky". Actually, Canadian environmental regulations are the most strict on the planet, or among the most strict. I don't know details of every country. But environmental activists don't understand that. So under Biden, the US started importing oil from dictatorships again. Environmental regulations in those countries are far worse than Canada. Trump suggested reviving the Keystone-XL pipeline again, but the company involved has lost too much money, they aren't interested.

Canada also sells electricity, and natural gas. Natural gas is a byproduct of fracking. Natural gas wasn't always produced as a byproduct of oil, but fracking produces a lot. Unfortunately US oil companies are not capturing that natural gas, instead burning it off as "flair". As a result, the US purchases natural gas from Canada.

You want to obsess over the tiny trade deficit? You want to ignore the much larger trade deficit with Vietnam, or other countries, and obsess over Canada? Fine. The order American oil companies to capture the natural gas produced by fracking, sell it to the American market. It'll take infrastructure to do so, but that's up to the US to spend that money. Then you could reduce import of natural gas from Canada. The US already exports liquefied natural gas to Europe, which means America has enough to sell. However, you could reduce natural gas imports from Canada so you can eliminate this "trade deficit". Canada won't worry about natural gas because Canada already built a pipeline to the Pacific coast, and the liquefication plant is expect to be operational this year. Canada can export LNG to Europe. Since Trump wants to impost tariffs on Europe as well, Europe is looking for an alternate supplier for their LNG. And with the pipelines from Russia shut down, Europe needs more LNG than they currently receive anyway.

Again, this does not involve Canada doing anything, so tariffs against Canada are counterproductive. What's required is the US must invest in building equipment to capture natural gas.

Calliban · Today 10:36:07

Robert, I don't doubt that what Trump is doing w.r.t trade with Canada is the wrong move for both countries. But for better or for worse, it is happening. What you and I think counts for little.

The question now is what are you (and Canada) going to do about it? You can tariff US goods in response. That might add a little to tax revenue to Canadian coffers, but it won't restore North American trade arrangements. It won't bring back the jobs lost. You can wait for another administration to reverse the folly. Maybe they will. But that may mean waiting a long time. At least 4 years, maybe longer. Or you can form new trade relations with other countries. Maybe the US-Canada trade situation will improve. Maybe it won't. It isn't a good idea to sit on ones hands waiting for a foreign actor to change their trade policy. Canada needs to take charge of the situation. If NAFTA is dead, make other arrangements. I have suggested one option. There are doubtless others.

RobertDyck · Today 10:54:36

Void wrote:

Quote:
Immigration Bubble IMPLODES! Shocking Data Revealed.

Canada has a major problem: too much immigration. Canada has a birth rate crisis, like every developed country of the world. The US also has a birth rate problem, but it's not as bad in the US as most developed countries. All developed countries have increased immigration to try to compensate for the birth rate problem. The US needs immigration as well, but I don't want a distraction. From 2006 to 2015, Stephen Harper was Prime Minister of Canada. He increased immigration to address this problem. However, Harper targeted immigration primarily from countries that have a Conservative bias, to increase voter support for his party. Trudeau was PM from 2015 until last month. Trudeau tried to increase immigration as well, but he tried to emphasize immigrants who have a Liberal bias. In both cases unfair and political, but they did. However, Trudeau went farther. Trudeau said he wanted to make a Canada a "post-nation state". WTF does that mean!?! He wants Canada to no longer be a country? He wants to destroy the culture of Canada? He wants Canada to be a microcosm of the entire world, destroying everything that makes Canada unique? The majority of Canadians do not agree with that. Most voters in Canada chose to ignore these statements from Trudeau, but it became a problem.

Canada had a population of 35.85 million in July 2015. Today it's 41.5 million. (Source: Statistics Canada) That's a 15.76% increase in 10 years. That's a massive number of immigrants, changing the character of the country. The Liberal government likes to claim Canada is multi-cultural, not a melting pot. However, Canadian citizens require immigrants to assimilate. Canada has had too many immigrants come in too fast, they aren't assimilating. One example: in Canada, you're not allowed to enter a retail store, bank, or court wearing any form of face covering. If you do, it's assumed you're there for robbery. Exposed face is recorded by security cameras so police can arrest the offender. But some Muslim immigrants wear a niqab. This was complicated during COVID when people were expected to wear medical masks. Official languages in Canada are English and French, but I'm seeing billboards in the south end of the city entirely in Chinese. A billboard less than half a block from my house shows a man of Indian descent wearing a turban, promoting immigration and services for recent immigrants. Employment recruiters usually have a Hindi accent, and that's for work within the country. I've encountered individuals surprised when I say I was born in Canada.

All this has produced several serious practical problems. There isn't enough housing for all these immigrants. With too few housing units (houses, condos, apartments) and too many people, the market laws of supply-and-demand have driven housing prices up. Many immigrants from India or Hong Kong come with money, able to buy expensive housing. This has driven prices up further. There's a boom in housing construction, but it isn't enough. Some immigrants realized cost of living in Canada is too expensive, so have gone back to where they came from.

RobertDyck · Today 11:11:54

Calliban wrote:

The question now is what are you (and Canada) going to do about it?

I'm just a working guy. I was a computer software developer, now I'm a computer technician. What I can do is post here. Raise awareness of the problem. The fact this will hurt the economy of both countries. I post on another forum about Ukraine; that one has a log of MAGA supporters. For more than a year now I repost a link to a YouTube video with updates on the Ukraine war. Because some people won't click the link, I write a summary of the video with every post. That YouTubber posts 3 times per week, so it keeps me busy.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has authority of the taxes. Congress is already talking about repealing the emergency action that authorized the President to impose tariffs on Canada. The House of Representatives only has a Republican majority of 5, with 4 empty seats. Elections to fill those empty seats are being organized now. I understand US law requires states to initiate the election, even though it's for the federal government. As a Canadian, I find that weird, but that's your system. And the US system requires an election to fill an empty seat once it has been empty for 6 months. So it's in process. We can encourage voters to vote Democrat. We can also ask Congressmen to act now. It only takes 5 Republican Congressmen to have a sick day when the vote comes down to repeal Trump tariffs. Some US Senators are asking Republican Senators to take public actions that match what they have said in private.

Meanwhile, Canada completed the TransMountain pipeline expansion. That's a new pipe beside an existing pipe, and the new one is larger diameter so more than doubles capacity. It goes from the Alberta oil patch to a sea port in Burnaby. That's immediately beside Vancouver. The Coast GasLink is a natural gas pipeline to a different location on the Pacific coast. The pipeline is finished, liquefication plant is under construciton, expected to be operational this year. So that means selling to other countries. When Mark Carney was sworn-in as Prime Minister (the US has inauguration, Canada has swearing-in), he visited the UK and France first. That's not only to increase trade, but also because they're NATO allies and both those countries have nuclear weapons. If the US won't protect Canada, we need another ally that has nukes. Canada was part of the Manhattan Project in WW2, the US pressured Canada to not manufacture nukes of our own. That many have been a mistake. Ukraine surrendering their nukes was a major mistake. Canada has a trade agreement with Europe (CETA). Negotiations started before UK left the EU. Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so has trade agreements with the UK already. Canada would like to maintain it's trade with the US, but if Trump won't let that happen, then Canada does have options.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2876 2025-03-30 11:21:12

Re: Politics

#2877 2025-03-30 12:01:20

Re: Politics

#2878 2025-03-30 14:37:44

Re: Politics

#2879 2025-03-30 15:44:41

Re: Politics

#2880 2025-03-30 17:34:29

Re: Politics

#2881 2025-03-30 17:58:47

Re: Politics

#2882 2025-03-31 11:02:20

Re: Politics

#2883 2025-03-31 13:32:59

Re: Politics

#2884 Yesterday 07:18:49

Re: Politics

#2885 Yesterday 08:53:30

Re: Politics

#2886 Yesterday 13:53:24

Re: Politics

#2887 Yesterday 14:08:25

Re: Politics

#2888 Yesterday 17:57:17

Re: Politics

#2889 Yesterday 18:17:43

Re: Politics

#2890 Yesterday 18:23:40

Re: Politics

#2891 Yesterday 20:49:31

Re: Politics

#2892 Yesterday 21:54:51

Re: Politics

#2893 Today 05:03:03

Re: Politics

#2894 Today 06:20:56

Re: Politics

#2895 Today 08:10:42

Re: Politics

#2896 Today 09:00:06

Re: Politics

#2897 Today 10:00:01

Re: Politics

#2898 Today 10:36:07

Re: Politics

#2899 Today 10:54:36

Re: Politics

#2900 Today 11:11:54

Re: Politics

Board footer