Motorin'

I've been wondering when Beane After Dark's going to start this season! Here we have ep. 1 Joey Bosa!

Palmer was the guy that made the most sense to go after to me, based on availability and cap space. For this very reason. He's built like Amari Cooper but faster and more physical at this point in their careers. He can also block in the run game. Like you said, the Bills can win a Super Bowl with this offense. Now they need to build a defense capable of winning a championship.

It's just one of a number of examples of Canadians lying about their protectionist policies that treat US companies and imports differently. And this is part of a much broader agenda, as outlined by Marco Rubio in his confirmation hearing. He said the system setup in the post-war world that placed America at the center of global affairs has been turned against America by allies and adversaries alike. In so doing, the US is being slowly bled to death... At the rate of debt accrual over the last 25 years, and the rate that money has to be printed to keep up, the national debt will be 132,000 Trillion in 100 years time. And the average home price will be 1.7 trillion. The insanity has to end. Ending US global patronage of any and everybody and equalizing trade relations is just one aspect that needs to happen.

Also from Grok. Why Trump is correct about US banking in Canada. What he said was Canada's laws make it impossible "to do business." Ask "what rules does Canada impose on US banks that they don't impose on Canadian banks" Canada imposes specific regulations on foreign-based banks operating within its borders under the *Bank Act*, which differ from those applied to domestic Canadian banks (Schedule I banks). These rules are designed to maintain stability in the Canadian financial system but create distinct competitive disadvantages for foreign banks. Below is an explanation of the key differences and their impacts: ### Rules Imposed on Foreign-Based Banks (Not Imposed on Canadian Banks) 1. **Operational Structure Restrictions**: - Foreign banks can operate in Canada either as subsidiaries (Schedule II banks) or branches (Schedule III banks), but not as fully integrated entities like Canadian Schedule I banks. - **Subsidiaries (Schedule II)**: These are separate legal entities incorporated in Canada, requiring their own capital, governance, and risk management structures. Unlike Canadian banks, they are subject to ownership by a foreign parent and must comply with additional regulatory oversight tied to their foreign affiliation. - **Branches (Schedule III)**: These are extensions of the foreign bank and cannot accept retail deposits under CAD 150,000 unless they are from specific institutional clients (e.g., governments or large corporations). Canadian banks face no such deposit size restriction. 2. **Deposit-Taking Limitations**: - Schedule III branches are prohibited from accepting retail deposits below CAD 150,000, a restriction not applied to Canadian banks or their subsidiaries. This effectively excludes foreign branches from the retail banking market, limiting them to wholesale or commercial banking activities. - Schedule II subsidiaries can accept smaller deposits, but they must maintain separate capitalization and comply with Canadian regulatory standards, which can increase operational costs compared to Canadian banks that operate under a single, unified structure. 3. **Capital Equivalency Deposits**: - Foreign bank branches (Schedule III) are required to maintain "capital equivalency deposits" in Canada to cover their liabilities. This is a reserve requirement not imposed on Canadian banks, which manage their capital under domestic risk-based frameworks set by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). 4. **Approval and Oversight Process**: - Foreign banks must obtain approval from both the Minister of Finance and OSFI to establish operations in Canada, a two-step process that evaluates policy implications and operational prudence. Canadian banks, once incorporated, do not face this additional entry hurdle. - Foreign banks are subject to ongoing scrutiny to ensure compliance with Canadian laws, including restrictions on activities like personal property leasing, which do not apply to Canadian banks in the same way. 5. **Ownership and Control Limits**: - While Canadian Schedule I banks must be widely held (no single shareholder can own more than 20% of voting shares), foreign bank subsidiaries (Schedule II) are controlled by their foreign parents. This subjects them to additional regulatory checks to ensure alignment with Canadian financial stability goals, unlike Canadian banks, which face fewer constraints on domestic ownership structures. ### Competitive Disadvantages for Foreign-Based Banks 1. **Limited Access to Retail Banking**: - The CAD 150,000 deposit threshold for Schedule III branches bars foreign banks from competing for the savings of average Canadian consumers, a market dominated by Canadian banks like RBC, TD, and Scotiabank. This restricts foreign banks to niche areas like corporate lending, wealth management, or treasury services, reducing their market reach and revenue potential. 2. **Higher Operational Costs**: - Schedule II subsidiaries must maintain separate capital and governance structures, increasing compliance and administrative costs compared to Canadian banks, which operate under a single, integrated framework. The capital equivalency deposit requirement for branches adds further financial burden, tying up funds that could be used elsewhere. 3. **Barriers to Market Entry and Expansion**: - The stringent approval process and ongoing regulatory oversight deter some foreign banks from entering or expanding in Canada. Canadian banks, by contrast, can open branches and offer services nationwide without facing equivalent entry barriers, leveraging their established networks and customer bases. 4. **Reduced Competitive Pressure on Canadian Banks**: - The restrictions insulate Canadian banks from foreign competition, particularly in the retail sector. Posts on X and analyses like those from the Competition Bureau note that this lack of competition allows Canadian banks to maintain higher fees and less innovative services, a dynamic foreign banks struggle to challenge due to their limited scope. 5. **Difficulty Attracting Customers**: - Switching costs for Canadian consumers (e.g., fees, penalties) make it harder for foreign banks to attract clients away from established Canadian banks, especially since branches cannot offer retail deposit accounts. This entrenches the dominance of Canada’s "Big Six" banks, which control the vast majority of banking assets. ### Broader Context and Implications Canada’s banking regulations prioritize stability—credited for its resilience during the 2008 financial crisis—but critics, including the Competition Bureau, argue they stifle innovation and competition. Foreign banks, despite holding about half of foreign bank assets in Canada (with U.S. banks like JPMorgan and Citi active as subsidiaries), operate at a disadvantage compared to Canadian banks expanding abroad, such as TD and BMO in the U.S. This asymmetry has fueled debates, with figures like Donald Trump (as noted in recent news) claiming unfair treatment, though the rules reflect Canada’s protective regulatory philosophy rather than an outright ban. In summary, Canada’s rules limit foreign banks’ ability to engage in retail banking, impose higher costs, and restrict their operational flexibility, creating a competitive landscape that heavily favors domestic institutions. These disadvantages hinder foreign banks’ ability to challenge the entrenched position of Canadian banks, particularly in the consumer market.

So what if the exact opposite is true, that Trump has the authority under US law, as President, to adjust tariffs as he sees fit? Does that change your narrative? Or is this just "make up as many claims as I can as a Canadian, but I'll never admit that we've have higher tariffs on US goods."

Somebody needs to stop watching Madow.

Trudeau told Trump Canada wouldn't be able to function as a country. So Trump said well if you can't function as a country might as well become a state.

This sounds as crazy as the right wing conspiracies about Obama invading Texas when he sent troops there to drill on combating "hostile" states. Trudeau said Canada will cease to be a country if the tariffs go into effect. There's zero point zero percent chance the US invades Canada to your land.

Not really, but I don't trust Zelensky either. I think he's becoming fanatical, and would rather drag the world into war than budge an inch. The problem as I see it, the left around the world has applied their form of identity politics onto the war. The Ukrainian flag in one's profile signifies at once you're progressive, anti-racist, pro-science, pro-woman, pro-equality, pro-freedom and pro-democracy. Of course you can be all of those things and be against this war and in favor of negotiated peace. But that's how the left's virtual signalling works. If you're not pro-Ukraine to the death of Russia than you're anti-all of those things. I relaying this to you as someone who was adamantly against the Iraq invasion. I detested George W. Bush and the way his government owned the US media and their surrogates around the world. And I think control of US media spin has swung in the opposite direction, in control of a democrat / neo-con convergence. And I think it stinks as bad as it did under Bush.

Here's an alternative hypothesis. Russia invaded Ukraine due to real national security threats that they take seriously. Threats born in the Obama administration, carried out under Hillary Clinton's State Department. So the real guarantee of peace is removing the threats to Russia. No NATO for Ukraine. No missile defense systems East of the Dnipro. And a DMZ buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine. Now to the issue of the allies not trusting the US. They're liberal globalist leaders are parroting Democrat talking points. Don't care.

It's funny, the liberals argue that the Russians military capable is shite and incapable of much of anything while the otherside of their mouth argues that if we don't fund and arm Ukraine indefinitely then Russia will roll right through Poland and take all Europe. Which is it?

It's the argument that if Russia wins in Ukraine, then they'll take all of Europe next. And then the US will have to go fight Russia when Russia triggers Article 5. Which I would totally buy, if by wins he means Russia rolls right through and takes Kyiv in a matter of days. But if he means by win Russia keeping an inch of land in the Dumbass, then that's very hard to believe. Imagine Putin thinking, hey look we won 10-20% of the border regions in three years. Let's go for all of Europe next! Straight from Donetsk to the Danube! Not seeing it. Putin's the big loser, after the dead in Ukraine and the dead Russians. Biden's admin locked them into a stalemate. But that also means Ukraine can't win. So Zelensky is saying you have to fund us indefinitely to fight in perpetuity, because we won't accept the loss of an inch of land. And if you stop funding us, Russia might take all of Ukraine. And then you're next! But it's funny. If Ukraine accepts a peace deal and the active fighting winds to a halt, then the conditions for the suspension of the Ukrainian elections are no longer met. So Zelensky has a major conflict of interest. He gets to keep power for as long as the fighting continues.

Checks Starmer's footnotes: Boots on the ground and planes in the air, only in the event that Russia breaks a ceasefire agreement. Secondary note: and only if the US commits to boots on the ground and planes in the air...

Lindsey Graham is part of the problem and one of the reasons this was started. His dumb ass, along with with John McCain, planning with the Ukrainians to strike back at Russia in 2016, when they were assuming Hillary was going to win. And he's obviously a total slime ball.

Jesus. Waiting to hear, "that's not happening."

You mean perpetrator. But that's the point, treating the perpetrator like they are the victim.

It's really hard to get top 10 wr. And I'm certainly not opposed to prioritizing speed + suddenness in trying to find an outside wr who can get open quickly. But I think Higgins fits the Bills scheme, as well as being able to block. Which seems to be an important factor getting snaps in this offense. Kind of see him as an eventual Mack Hollins replacement if they were to take him in round 2. To be honest, I'm kind of hoping for three legit difference makers on defense with the first 3 picks. We shall see.

It didn't happen, It happened and it's a good thing...

"My condolences and all of our thoughts are with the family of the individual whose life has been lost," - Mayor Wu The only person that lost their life was the knife welding suspect.

Here's what "Homelanders" profile pic would look like if it was accurate:

I think he has a fluidity and smoothness in his route running that is a bit underappreciated when compared to extra twitch. I'm seeing a Drake London / Michael Pittman comp. He has some nasty double moves and can be a deep threat, but excels in the type of quick hit routes the Bills offense was built around last year.

Faster, much more explosive vertical, slightly taller, 2" longer arms than Tee Higgins. Similar college production. I'll take a 6'4" 215lbs outside receiver with good route running that runs a 4.47.

Liberal fan fiction is back in gear! It's like a chose your own adventure, make up whatever you want Trump to have said so you can share with your friends.