this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
623 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19096 readers
4810 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dump money into military spending, border control, and refugee assistance.

[–] SCB 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

There is no amount of military spending that could protect Canada from the US. The military gap is obscene.

It makes no sense to ratchet up military spending

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The US military itself, yeah probably not...But a group of renegade Americans headed North we might be able to do something about.

[–] Agent641 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I meant in the context of self defense because it cannot rely on the US, not that the US would attempt some kind of attack on Canada.

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago

That makes sense

[–] lennybird 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think the context is so much military related but rather diplomatic and economic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does the last sentence really come as an obvious conclusion from the first two?

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe the opportunity cost of increasing military production does not seem to be worth it, so it follows to me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Theres other considerations beyond state to state war with the US.

I'm not Canadian and don't actually have an opinion, but here's other reasons they might increase their defense budget because of US destabilization. Decreased global stability due to loss of neighboring super power. Non state actors like terrorists or refugees leaving the US.

I don't think that Canada will be fighting the New Confederacy or the New England Union of Democratic Socialists in 2028, but there are still reasons that a diminished US would mean Canada should spend new money on defense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Military spending on what though? The CAF is woefully dependent on the US for basically everything. Hell they probably could turn off those F-35s by pressing a button.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I meant in the context of general self-reliance because Canada may not be able to rely on the US.

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago

That's a fair point, but does Canada have a geopolitical enemy? I genuinely don't know enough about Canadian politics, and this is a real question.