Canadians vote for huge tax increases

This is BIG! 66% of Canadians are home owners. They now have zero invested. They voted to have their home equity removed. They were told for weeks this would happen by voting Liberal and they voted Liberal. Have you ever heard of people voting for higher taxes. Canadians do it routinely. Yah. You are missing the real story. 

Carney is drooling at the prospect of knocking down home equity. He put it out as a floater during the election! People voted for him  If you own a home and thought you were set, and you voted for Carney, you are in for a rude awakening. All I can tell you is, you should have taken the cotton out of your ears.

Wait for it. Liberals are coming for your hundreds of thousands in Home Equity. That's what Canadians voted for. Taxes to strip them of their worth. Believe it of not. In a country with more resources than any place on Earth, our people voted for the one guy who wants to make them poor.

Is U.S. really after the Canadian treasure?

I don't believe the U.S. wants Canada, but in reality the GROK AI informs that since the 1970s, Canada has made a lot of progress in reducing Foreign Direct Investment. The U.S. may feel they have been shoved out of Canadian investment since the 1970s. They may be moving hard to return to Canadian investment. In no way do I believe Liberals are the ones to protect Canadian interests, but you have to give them credit where credit is due. It was the initiatives of Pierre Trudeau to push down U.S. FDI in favor of domestic economic growth that created this different balance. Nevertheless. Mulroney reinforced it, as did Harper. So choosing one party over the other to protect Canadian sovereignty appears to be a push.

"The U.S. owns and controls approximately 15–20% of Canada’s petroleum energy sector in terms of direct ownership and control, primarily through FDI (C$109.8 billion, 20% of sector capital) and subsidiaries like Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil-owned). Including portfolio investments (e.g., U.S. asset managers’ stakes in Suncor, CNRL), the total U.S. financial stake rises to 30–40% of the sector’s revenues or market capitalization (C$50–60 billion in equity). This estimate is based on 2023 FDI data, historical ownership trends, and revenue shares from 2010–2015, with U.S. influence most pronounced in oil sands and refining."

Go Deep https://x.com/i/grok/share/5W5nTEuMOsxIV0D4E2ciPj3Ry

Canadian Leadership Debate English Review (editorialized)

https://gem.cbc.ca/ 

Canadian political leaders Mark Carney, Pierre Poilievre, Yves Blanchet, and Jagmeet Singh debate in English from the Montreal television studios of the CBC.

REVIEW (editorialized)

Yves Blanchet, BLOC Quebecois called petroleum movement in pipelines a monstrosity.

How are pipelines monstrosities?  

How about no energy in a world of 8.1 billion people. More the monstrosity is denying people energy.

There is no Canadian federal election. There is an election in Quebec for the heart and soul of Canadian federal politicians exclusive of any voters in Canada.

No one else matters but these four people debating in Quebec.

Maybe Carney is obsessed with being in the world, which is somehow detached from being in Canada. Before I shut it off, Carney began prattling about Canadian Taxpayers having to pay the burden of a world wide climate crisis.

No, to Carney.   Absolutely NO on these climate change tropes.

At one moment I had to shut off the debate because Jagmeet Singh would not allow Pierre Poilievre to speak.

It seems crazy to have people such as these running a country.

I am going to vote for the most radical amount of change from existing governance in Canada.

If that happens to be Pierre Poilievre, so be it.

It's not because he's great. It's absolutely because the choices are dreadful.

The only province mentioned outside of 'all the provinces,' is Quebec.

This is getting old in Canada.

Singh returns to the Gaza scene being a genocide by Israel, which is an unspeakable turn of lies to support insane antisemitic policies.

When Poilievre discusses the Century Initiative, Singh goes full pitbull again, interrupting, talking over, and preventing his opponent from speaking.

Carney takes Conservative platform to heart, and talks about building the trades. 

Blanchet lies and calls small nuclear plants more dangerous than large nuclear plants.

I would imagine hospitals and universities in Quebec have small nuclear plants like most universities, and hospitals.

But the truth would be terribly inconvenient to people who lead Canadians.

CONCLUSIONS

Singh says NDP in Parliament brought Medicare, and other benefits.

Carney makes his election position anti-Trump

Poilievre wants the old promises of Canada to come back

Blanchet wants Quebec to have sound relations with U.S.A. in trade.

(Afterthoughts:  Blanchet was far more wary of attacking Poilievre.

The only province mentioned was Quebec. A couple times Marble-Mouth Carney attempted to squeak out 'Alberta.' 

He failed. None of them mentioned northern Canada. None of them mentioned our coasts. None of them mentioned Newfoundland, or the Maritimes. 

It was strictly a Quebec debate about Quebec.)

A lot of after-debate observers were struck by the amount of static noise the NDP leader generated through the middle of the debate.

This allowed zero traction to a Poilievre argument and occasionally a Carney argument, and Singh stymied debate between the two central combatants to the finish. I believe part  of the failure to allow debate fell on Paikin. But the moderator did get the worst of it under control by the fourth and fifth round.

 

I wonder if it was the most effective way for Singh to portray his politics. Perhaps it was his best shot because at least he was present, and remembered.

 

Blanchet, once again, proved the most Patrician of the debaters. He delivered level headed responses in a timely manner and never strayed from topics.

Are human beings becoming ungovernable?

The federal party leaders in Canada went to debate in French on Apr 16, in the first of two debates, one in French and another in English.

Melissa Mbarki (@MelissaMbarki) wrote on X: "Blanchet wants Canadians to wean off petroleum. He also doesn't support nuclear. What does he want to transition to?"

To paraphrase Melissa, who asks the most penetrating question, "What does Blanchet want this energy transition to be?"

I replied with the following discourse.

There is nothing to transition to. 100 million Barrels of Oil per day will not be replaced by wishful thinking.

8.1 billion people in a Petroleum Energy World enter an energy famine in 50 years, when there will be 10 billion people, and no replacement energy source.

What does that sound like to you?

Can you imagine?

It took 150 years to build the Petroleum Energy World of 2025.

With no replacement, and nothing conceived, even if we miraculously found the energy solution of 'tomorrow' this evening, tonight, and having it in hand, this miracle will do nothing to avert an energy famine impending for  humanity in less than 50 years.

Think about that. Less than 50 years from now, you won't be able to recharge your batteries.

Hone your prayer skills. That's your only hope.

Any possible way you look at it, the human race has botched energy.  Completely fucked it up with energy.  A complete idiocracy when it comes to energy.

That's why we have these fucking criminals in governments the world over.  

Because we fucked up, and we're in a hopeless fucking situation, which is where criminal minds thrive.

We're going to be governed by the lawless because we are far too stupid and insipid to be governed by decency and common sense.  We are fucked because we deserve to be fucked.

Imagine not being able to find honest people to govern you.

How fucking big a loser are you when you cannot find a decent human being to put in charge?

Anywhere in the world.

Scum at every corner, every turn, every time. SCUM SCUM SCUM of the earth to rule the earth and the stupid insipid fucking monstrous idiots on the earth.

Soon we will be forced to ask one single thing.

Are human beings ungovernable?

You can tell now. The way we are facing the inevitable failure of energy resources is the best indication of the abject stupidity and uselessness of humanity.

As a creature, stench. As a sentient being, a fucking joke.

Normally I don't feel so nihilistic. I lean heavily toward heresy. I prefer to think for myself.

But this election season in Canada, one of three energy superpowers, the governance I am seeing in Canada, the farce of international globalism, the twits in activism, whether they are climate activists, fish farm activists, energy activists, tree hugger activists, rainforest activists, indigenous activists, or all the above as in Canada's Environment Minister.

They have managed to reduce humanity to one new rule:

No Lives Matter.

I say this as I watch humans point the vehicle at the concrete wall and put the pedal to the metal. 

It's no surprise Elon Musk intends to leave Earth behind. It will become a nightmare as the reality dawns about the energy famine. It will not be livable even in sanctuaries behind gates.

Israel is the only enemy the Liberals have

So bizarre you political observers cannot see what is happening. Trudeau (obviously at the advice of Mark Carney) put an arms embargo against Israel last year.  Mark Carney made a bold declaration of pride in that arms embargo last week.  

These diplomatic bear traps have consequences.  The U.S. ceasing Honda auto manufacturing is a DIRECT diplomatic response to Carney's attack on Israel.  Canada's position with Israel's defense is so far out in left field, it's going to cost Carney the election. As it should.

I don't understand how Carney would fail to avoid asymmetric warfare in the middle of an election.

https://msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/lilley-carney-campaign-s-prayers-answered-with-latest-51st-state-comments/ar-AA1CZgBT?ocid=socialshare&pc=ASTS&cvid=22ea96ab43ec47a0ba21a91a7e6fae90&ei=6

Seriously, Israel continues to demand release of hostages, civilians captured, spared from slaughter only to be kidnapped and dragged away to brutality and captivity, Oct 7, 2023. 

AND CARNEY'S MAKING GHASTLY QUIPS ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IN HIS ARMS EMBARGOS.  

Not Kosher. Even as Jews are engaged in Passover to celebrate overcoming despot assholes like Carney.

Did Daily Oil Consumption Fall During Covid?

 SOURCE IS GROK (https://x.com/i/grok/share/HSkMUxM7KYyIduHJn2qltJaBk )

Recovery to Present-Day Numbers:

Yes, global oil consumption has recovered from the 2020 COVID-19 downturn, when it fell to about 91 million barrels per day (b/d). By 2023, it reached approximately 100.2 million b/d, and 2024 estimates suggest around 103 million b/d, surpassing pre-pandemic levels due to eased restrictions, economic rebound, and sustained demand in sectors like transportation and industry.

10-Year Projections (2025–2035): Projections for daily global oil consumption over the next decade vary depending on economic growth, energy transition policies, and technological adoption (e.g., electric vehicles, EVs). Below are key insights based on available data:

• Near-Term (2025–2028):
  • 2025: Forecasts estimate consumption at around 103.9–104.3 million b/d, with growth of about 0.9–1.45 million b/d from 2024, driven by non-OECD Asia (e.g., China and India).
  • 2026: Growth is expected to continue, with estimates ranging from 104.7–105.3 million b/d, reflecting a modest increase of 1.0–1.43 million b/d.
  • 2027–2028: The International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests growth slowing, with demand possibly reaching 105–106 million b/d by 2028, but some sources predict a peak around this time due to EV adoption and efficiency gains.
• Mid-to-Long-Term (2029–2035):
  • Optimistic Scenarios (e.g., OPEC, ExxonMobil): OPEC projects demand could rise to 108–112 million b/d by 2030, assuming strong economic growth in emerging markets and slower EV penetration. They see demand plateauing post-2035 above 100 million b/d through 2050, driven by transportation and petrochemicals.
  • Moderate Scenarios (e.g., EIA, Enverus): The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Enverus estimate demand at around 108 million b/d by 2030, with a potential peak between 2030 and 2035. Post-peak, demand may stabilize or decline slightly due to energy transitions.
  • Pessimistic Scenarios (e.g., IEA, McKinsey): The IEA and McKinsey project a peak closer to 2025–2030 at 104–106 million b/d, followed by a decline to 97–100 million b/d by 2035. This assumes aggressive decarbonization, widespread EV adoption, and reduced oil use in transport.
• Key Drivers and Uncertainties:
  • Growth Factors: Demand in non-OECD countries (e.g., India, China) for transportation and petrochemicals will likely sustain consumption. Air travel and plastics production are harder to decarbonize, supporting oil use.
  • Decline Factors: Rapid EV adoption, energy efficiency, and renewable energy policies could curb demand, especially in OECD nations. China’s shift to LNG trucks and EVs is already slowing oil growth.
  • Geopolitical and Economic Risks: Trade policies (e.g., U.S. tariffs), sanctions, and OPEC+ production decisions add uncertainty. A surplus is projected by 2025 if supply outpaces demand, potentially lowering prices and affecting consumption.

Critical Perspective: Establishment forecasts often diverge based on assumptions about policy and technology. OPEC’s higher projections align with producer interests, while IEA’s lower estimates reflect net-zero ambitions, which may overestimate transition speed given current infrastructure and economic realities. Actual outcomes will hinge on unpredictable factors like global GDP, geopolitical stability, and consumer behavior. My synthesis leans toward a peak near 2030 at 105–108 million b/d, followed by a plateau or gradual decline, as emerging market demand offsets OECD reductions.

If you’d like, I can dig deeper into a specific region or scenario!

ME: No Thanks, Grok.