stock here: I rarely give out money, but this guy is worth it. As Kirk’s assassination anniversary approaches, I am sure the left would love to kill Shirley too.
I gave just $10, but if 50,000 people do that, he has enough money for a year and a half.
I hate that I have to do this, it’s my least favorite part about my life. I knew my life would get even more dangerous when I announced I am suing California and began accepting invitations to speak on college campuses this semester. I need to raise money again for security. Doing the right thing and exposing evil now puts your life in danger in today’s society. For example, a UC Irvine “lecturer” (teacher) is insinuating it would be funny to assassinate me and leftist are threatening to kill me constantly. I will not cower to the radicals or the far left who threaten and plot to kill and destroy our country, yet the $30k–$50k a month it costs me just to stay safe doing my job is unsustainable. I make enough for my needs and my employees, but this added expense produces no return and is unsustainable on my own. If you can donate, please donate here: http://Nickshirley.us Donations are tax-deductible and go strictly toward security/operations, anything helps
If you cannot donate no worries please like and share this so more may see it! God bless, Nick
DHS shared with me the WORST OF THE WORST illegals arrested over the weekend.
While most Americans had off for labor day, our brave ICE agents worked through the weekend getting foreign m*rderers, r*pists, pedos, baby and cop beaters, and drug traffickers off our… pic.twitter.com/dynFM6k2d8
stock here: The X Account I used up to a few months ago, has just been disappeared.
Curious though in 2019 my prior X account was suspended, but was not deleted in any way. They are keeping 6,668 tweets in my history, which today was “linked to my phone” in order to get the account back.
Our approach to policy development and enforcement philosophy
Our approach to policy development and enforcement philosophy
X is reflective of real conversations happening in the world and that sometimes includes perspectives that may be offensive, controversial, and/or bigoted to others. While we welcome everyone to express themselves on our service, we will not tolerate behavior that harasses, threatens, or uses fear to silence the voices of others.
We have the X Rules in place to help ensure everyone feels safe expressing their beliefs and we strive to enforce them with uniform consistency. Learn more about different enforcement actions.
Our policy development process
Creating a new policy or making a policy change requires in-depth research around trends in online behavior, developing clear external language that sets expectations around what’s allowed, and creating enforcement guidance for reviewers that can be scaled across millions of posts.
While drafting policy language, we gather feedback from a variety of internal teams as well as our Trust & Safety Council. This is vital to ensure we are considering global perspectives around the changing nature of online speech, including how our rules are applied and interpreted in different cultural and social contexts. Finally, we train our global review teams, update the X Rules, and start enforcing the new policy.
Our enforcement philosophy
We empower people to understand different sides of an issue and encourage dissenting opinions and viewpoints to be discussed openly. This approach allows many forms of speech to exist on our platform and, in particular, promotes counterspeech: speech that presents facts to correct misstatements or misperceptions, points out hypocrisy or contradictions, warns of offline or online consequences, denounces hateful or dangerous speech, or helps change minds and disarm.
Thus, context matters. When determining whether to take enforcement action, we may consider a number of factors, including (but not limited to) whether:
the behavior is directed at an individual, group, or protected category of people;
the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
the user has a history of violating our policies;
the severity of the violation;
the content may be a topic of legitimate public interest.
Is the behavior directed at an individual or group of people?
To strike a balance between allowing different opinions to be expressed on the platform, and protecting our users, we enforce policies when someone reports abusive behavior that targets a specific person or group of people. This targeting can happen in a number of ways (for example, @mentions, tagging a photo, mentioning them by name, and more).
Has the report been filed by the target of the potential abuse or a bystander?
Some posts may seem to be abusive when viewed in isolation, but may not be when viewed in the context of a larger conversation or historical relationship between people on the platform. For example, friendly banter between friends could appear offensive to bystanders, and certain remarks that are acceptable in one culture or country may not be acceptable in another. To help prevent our teams from making a mistake and removing consensual interactions, in certain scenarios we require a report from the actual target (or their authorized representative) prior to taking any enforcement action.
Does the user have a history of violating our policies?
We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending post(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can post again. If someone repeatedly violates our Rules then our enforcement actions become stronger. This includes requiring violators to remove the post(s) and taking additional actions like verifying account ownership and/or temporarily limiting their ability to post for a set period of time. If someone continues to violate Rules beyond that point then their account may be permanently suspended.
What is the severity of the violation?
Certain types of behavior may pose serious safety and security risks and/or result in physical, emotional, and financial hardship for the people involved. These egregious violations of the X Rules — such as posting violent threats, non-consensual intimate media, or content that sexually exploits children — result in the immediate and permanent suspension of an account. Other violations could lead to a range of different steps, like requiring someone to remove the offending post(s) and/or temporarily limiting their ability to post new post(s).
Is the behavior newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest?
X moves at the speed of public consciousness and people come to the service to stay informed about what matters. Exposure to different viewpoints can help people learn from one another, become more tolerant, and make decisions about the type of society we want to live in.
To help ensure people have an opportunity to see every side of an issue, there may be the rare occasion when we allow controversial content or behavior which may otherwise violate our Rules to remain on our service because we believe there is a legitimate public interest in its availability. Each situation is evaluated on a case by case basis and ultimately decided upon by a cross-functional team.
Some of the factors that help inform our decision-making about content are the impact it may have on the public, the source of the content, and the availability of alternative coverage of an event.
Public impact of the content: A topic of legitimate public interest is different from a topic in which the public may be curious. We will consider what the impact is to citizens if they do not know about this content. If the post does have the potential to impact the lives of large numbers of people, the running of a country, and/or it speaks to an important societal issue then we may allow the the content to remain on the service. Likewise, if the impact on the public is minimal we will most likely remove content in violation of our policies.
Source of the content: Some people, groups, organizations and the content they post on X may be considered a topic of legitimate public interest by virtue of their being in the public consciousness. This does not mean that their posts will always remain on the service. Rather, we will consider if there is a legitimate public interest for a particular post to remain up so it can be openly discussed.
Availability of coverage: Everyday people play a crucial role in providing firsthand accounts of what’s happening in the world, counterpoints to establishment views, and, in some cases, exposing the abuse of power by someone in a position of authority. As a situation unfolds, removing access to certain information could inadvertently hide context and/or prevent people from seeing every side of the issue. Thus, before actioning a potentially violating post, we will take into account the role it plays in showing the larger story and whether that content can be found elsewhere.
stock here: Why are they claiming Kauai looks like “A War Zone”? It was a Cat 2 Hurricane, and 70 Miles Away
Looks at the images at the bottom, these are fabrications to create fear. Facebook and Instagram seem to be the worst offenders. I saw one on a Hawaii News channel that looked like Lowell was just pounding Oahu and Kauai, and nothing on radar, IR, or visible looked even close. I didn’t screen cap it, and couldn’t find it again.
Here is one of the worst fabrications….
Although Hurricane Lowell’s advertised maximum wind was around 130 mph, Kauaʻi itself generally did not receive 130 mph winds. That figure applied to the hurricane’s compact inner core near the eyewall.
Reported on Kauaʻi:
Līhuʻe Airport sustained wind: just over 50 mph
Strongest reported gusts: approximately 80 mph
Likely general island exposure: 40–55 mph sustained, with 60–80 mph gusts
Mountain ridges, exposed headlands, and wind-accelerated gaps could have experienced locally stronger gusts, but reliable final station totals are not yet assembled.
AP reported sustained winds slightly above 50 mph at Līhuʻe and gusts reaching about 80 mph.
Why only 50–80 mph when the hurricane was 130 mph?
The wind does not decrease proportionally with mileage. It depends on the storm’s wind-field geometry:
130 mph existed close to the eyewall.
Hurricane-force winds extended roughly 50 miles from the center during the approach.
Tropical-storm-force winds extended as far as roughly 175 miles.
If Kauaʻi was around 70 miles from the center, it was largely outside the core but well inside the broad tropical-storm wind field.
This image looks completely made up, this looks like a direct hit, it was not. The media is over hyping the reality, for what purpose? To sell some climate change bullshit?
stock here: this seems odd, then admitting that they had made their mind up before any testimony was presented to them.
Seems also illegal to knowingly break the law, while pretending to be part of the legal process.
=================
Their comments showed they were completely clueless and favored Clancy for reasons that had nothing to do with the law.
WBTS posted the interview to YouTube on Tuesday. Farina called the prosecution’s opening statement “harsh,” and said she did not like that they did not present character witnesses for Clancy. “You’re presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody’s presenting for the prosecution, a woman, a mother of three children.”
Advertisement – story continues below
“I found it to be biased right out of the gate.”
Female Clancy jurors gush over defense attorney Kevin Reddington as "funny" and "entertaining."
stock here: I religiously do my annual physical, and push the doctor for some additional blood tests. He is thorough, and usually goes along with whatever I suggest.
But it’s once a year. Occasionally, I can get a “recheck” but that is also hard, living in 2 places and doing 3 vacations / cruises a year. So this caught my eye.
Will be grilling some Waegu style Rib eye tonight, maybe I should use the red oak, natural grill. High nutrient density and a decent amount of fat (needed for brain, but also cuts into the calorie budget). Did my last outdoor swim today, but hoping to get into the swing of twice weekly swims at the indoor pool.
stock here: summary of comments on ZH. The over prescription of drugs that directly play with the Human Reward Systems, is a crime of historic proportions. But that doesn’t forgive this brutal murder, and then what, the husband is supposed to support her by visiting often at the Psych ward?
As usual, Rogan is full of it and the clips miss the most important issues. The women are mad at the system for failing. They’re trying to raise awareness. Jennifer Tufts has no experience and handed out this junk like candy. Her testimony was shocking and why everyone started paying attention.
The full list of Clancy’s medications and the timeline of her prescriptions is listed below.
Mid–Oct. 2022 Zoloft (antidepressant)
Dose: 25 mg → 50 mg prescribed by Dr. Jennifer Tufts
Oct. 20, 2022 Ativan (anti-anxiety) prescribed by Dr. Jennifer Tufts
Oct. 20, 2022 Benadryl (sleep aid) prescribed by Dr. Jennifer Tufts
Nov. 16, 2022 Trazodone (sleep aid)
Dose: Up to 150 mg prescribed by South Shore ER
Nov. 21-25, 2022 Prozac (antidepressant)
Dose: 10 mg prescribed by NP Julie Paul
Nov. 25, 2022 Ambien (sleep aid) prescribed by NP Julie Paul
Nov. 25, 2022 Remeron (antidepressant/sleep aid) prescribed by NP Julie Paul
Nov. 25, 2022 Klonopin (anti-anxiety) prescribed by NP Julie Paul
My favorite is Jardiance — dancing fat people. Very funny.
lay_arrow
o
Rogan … “Anyone who has kids knows how much you love them”
Executive Summary
The discussion centers around Lindsay Clancy (a Massachusetts nurse accused of murdering her three children while allegedly suffering from postpartum depression/psychosis) and the medical, social, and political fallout of the case.
Commenters are overwhelmingly hostile toward Clancy, modern feminism, and the psychiatric system. A smaller sub-debate focuses on the role of Big Pharma and over-prescription, while others criticize media figures like Joe Rogan or discuss broader cultural shifts.
Key Discussion Themes
1. Personal Accountability & Criminal Justice
Demand for Strict Punishment: The dominant stance is that Clancy committed premeditated murder and must face severe consequences—ranging from life imprisonment without parole to public execution/the death penalty.
Rejection of Psychosis Defenses: Most commenters reject postpartum psychosis or medical side effects as valid excuses for killing children, viewing the defense as a loop-hole promoted by “feminist ideologues.”
2. Anti-Feminism & Gender Dynamics
Critique of Feminism: Multiple users attribute the defense of Clancy to modern or “white” feminism, arguing that feminist movements attempt to shield women from legal and moral accountability.
Extreme/Misogynistic Views: Several comments advocate for strict social controls over women, citing historical or Islamic societal structures as models, or warning men against marriage and state-enforced relationships.
3. Big Pharma & the Psychiatric System
Over-Medication Critique: A significant sub-thread focuses on the detailed timeline of drugs prescribed to Clancy (Zoloft, Ativan, Ambien, Seroquel, Valium, etc.). Users argue that polypharmacy and aggressive prescribing by doctors/NPs severely impair patients.
Systemic Distrust: Commenters express deep skepticism toward the psychiatric profession, FDA regulations, and pharmaceutical advertising (pointing to historical changes in TV ad laws).
4. Media & Cultural Commentary
Joe Rogan & Public Figures: Discussion touches on Joe Rogan’s commentary, with users divided on whether he missed key nuance regarding her medication history or appropriately condemned the acts.
Political Polarization: Commenters link the case to broader partisan topics, including abortion debates, progressive politics, and societal decline.
Focus on Big Pharma / Over-Medication / Medical System Failure: ~25%
Political / Culture-War Tangents: ~10%
Defending Psychiatric Context / Calling for Empathy: <5% (mostly downvoted or heavily criticized by other users)
——-
Anthony set a bad precedent for the 2026 trial of Lindsay Clancy.
Whereas mega-MILF Casey Anthony is too sexy to be guilty, Lindsay Clancy does not enjoy that privilege. We’ve got to draw the line in the sand somewhere. But I think, intuitively and without clear guidelines, we can all see that Lindsay Clancy is on the wrong side of the Universal Hot-Crazy Matrix and needs to be put away forever for her evil deeds.
What can we learn from these two trials? Here are a few conclusions:
Beauty saves you from guilty.
Never have children with women whose name ends in the letter “y” — ESPECIALLY if their first and last names end in “y”
Women will always simp for women crazier than themselves because of feminine empowerment.
There is no objective truth to the US justice system; it is literally based on a 12-juror po
An analysis and summary of the comment section (likely from a ZeroHedge or similar forum thread) regarding the Lindsay Clancy case, Joe Rogan’s coverage of it, and surrounding th
stock here: AI can solve problems fairly quick, when we might have to “menu surf” for an hour to get to the solution.
This will make computer programmers even more sloppy in how they design the GUIs that humans use. And humans will rely on AI more and more to brute thru these sloppy programs.
An EMP bomb will likely wipe out most “data centers” aka spy and analysis centers. BOOM, believe I am the first to observe this reality.
These guy talk about science, EMP, climate and more. H/T Flying Cuttlefish.
stock here: well she was fairly old, but still…..it’s a shame. But look at her in 2022, she looked great.
Look at her eyes as she took the jab, almost like she knew. And look at this misshapen heart…almost like this posing doctor knew too.
The underlying claim is substantially true:
In April 2020, Parton donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University Medical Center for COVID-19 research. Vanderbilt created the Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund.
Some of that money supported Vanderbilt research used in the Phase 1 testing of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine. Vanderbilt researcher Mark Denison said her funding supported critical early work, including development of a test showing whether the Moderna vaccine produced a potentially protective immune response.
There is unusually strong documentary backup for this: the New England Journal of Medicine paper on Moderna’s Phase 1 trial actually lists the “Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund” among the sources of support.
Parton then received a COVID vaccine publicly on camera at Vanderbilt on March 2, 2021, administered by her longtime physician/friend Dr. Naji Abumrad, and publicly encouraged others to get vaccinated. Vanderbilt documents the event and photograph.
Contemporary accounts identify the shot she received as Moderna, which was fitting given the research her donation had helped support.
The distinction I’d make is this:
“Dolly Parton helped fund research that contributed to the development/testing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, and she later received the Moderna vaccine publicly on camera.”
That’s well supported.
Calling her a “backer of Moderna” without qualification is a little loose because it could imply that she invested in Moderna, owned Moderna shares, financed the company directly, or had a commercial relationship with Moderna. I haven’t found evidence of that. Her $1 million went to Vanderbilt medical research, and part of that research directly supported the Moderna vaccine program.
The strongest piece of backup is actually the peer-reviewed NEJM paper: its funding section names NIH/NIAID funding, Vanderbilt grants, and the Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund for the Moderna mRNA-1273 Phase 1 work.
stock here: This guy (I assume) is an independent critical thinker. A Seer.
And just how are murderous invader called “Settlers”
We face an endless hypnosis by Babylonian-Radhanite merchant banker pilgrims who worship the unholy trinity of human sacrificing gods Moloch, Ba’al, and Mammon.
Whiskey Tango Texas is a non-monetized apolitical hobby blog featuring re-posted material. No claims on the property rights of others are made. Difficult is the way. Narrow is the gate. No one is coming to save you. Everything is your responsibility. Salvation waits on the other side of fear. Get your house in order. LET’S WIN!
Wow just Wow, really sorry this is all AI, but otherwise it could take 10 hours to put this together. What is Canada really up to? It makes no sense. I think it shouldn’t be looked like we are a protector to canada, it should be looked like we are keeping them close to keep them from being the invading source to USA from other countries….
By far Canada’s most diversified export market. Energy and motor vehicles are the two biggest Canadian goods-export categories to the U.S.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
C$46.6B
GOLD, crude oil/mineral fuels, silver
The oddball. Gold was 85.9% of Canada’s exports to Britain—about C$40.0B. Britain is functioning largely as a bullion/financial hub.
🇨🇳 China
C$34.4B
Crude oil, copper ore, iron ore, canola, coal, pulp/agricultural products
The Trans Mountain expansion changed this relationship. Crude-oil exports alone increased C$4.0B, +165% in 2025. Copper and iron ore also increased, while canola was hurt by Chinese tariffs.
🇯🇵 Japan
C$14.6B
Coal, canola seed, meat, crude oil, lumber/pulp and other resource products
A classic Canadian food-and-resources customer. Coal weakened in 2025 while meat and canola exports increased.
🇩🇪 Germany
C$9.2B
Crude oil, canola/oilseeds, metals/minerals, machinery/aerospace and other industrial goods
Exports jumped 35.4%. Growth was unusually broad; crude oil and oilseeds were notable contributors.
Almost the reverse of China: Canada sells Vietnam mainly food and raw materials, but buys C$19.3B from Vietnam. In US-dollar trade data, Canada’s top 2025 exports were cereals US$153M, meat US$103M, oilseeds US$92M, seafood US$66M and ores US$57M.
That reveals Canada’s real export machine
At the national level, the broad 2025 merchandise-export basket was approximately:
Canadian export sector
2025 exports
Energy products
C$189.1B
Metal & non-metallic mineral products — including refined metals/gold
C$105.8B
Consumer goods
C$89.8B
Motor vehicles & parts
C$80.6B
Farm, fishing & intermediate food
C$58.4B
Industrial machinery & parts
C$45.6B
Forestry/building/packaging products
C$44.5B
Chemicals, plastics & rubber
C$38.2B
Electronics/electrical equipment
C$33.2B
Aircraft & other transportation equipment
C$32.1B
Metal ores & non-metallic minerals
C$29.6B
So I’d characterize Canada as a resource superpower bolted onto a fairly substantial advanced manufacturing economy. Oil, gas, gold, aluminum, potash, uranium/minerals, lumber, wheat/canola and other food products are enormously important—but C$80.6B of vehicles, C$45.6B of machinery and C$32.1B of aircraft/transportation equipment are not trivial either.
And the U.S. relationship is even more interesting than it first appeared
Canada produced a record 249.9 million cubic metres of crude oil exports in 2025. Of that, 222.7 million m³—89.1%—still went to the United States, although non-U.S. crude exports more than doubled to 27.2 million m³ after Trans Mountain expansion.
That means Canada’s dependence on the U.S. isn’t simply, “we need somebody to buy our stuff.” A large portion is:
Canada has enormous amounts of oil, gas, electricity, lumber, metals and other bulk commodities, and 150 years of pipelines, railroads, power lines, factories and supply chains were physically built north-south to serve the gigantic economy immediately next door.
China cannot simply replace the U.S. as a buyer without enormous infrastructure and transportation changes.
And Britain deserves a giant asterisk. Strip roughly C$40B of gold out of the C$46.6B UK number and Canada’s ordinary physical-economy exports to Britain are only around C$6–7B. So China’s C$34B trade relationship is much more economically diverse than the UK ranking makes it look.
The next table I think would really nail this: take Canada’s 10 biggest actual exports—crude oil, gold, autos, natural gas, lumber, aluminum, canola, wheat, potash, aircraft—and show exactly WHO buys each one and what percentage goes to the U.S. That would quantify just how replaceable—or irreplaceable—the U.S. market actually is.
Yes. This is the table that exposes the real economic leverage. I used 2025 wherever detailed destination data are available; lumber and aircraft destination breakdowns are 2024, and grains use the 2024–25 crop year.
How dependent are Canada’s major exports on the U.S.?
Canadian export
Approx. export scale
Share going to U.S.
Who else buys it?
Could Canada replace U.S. buyers?
🛢️ Crude oil
C$140B (2025)
90.1%
China, Singapore, Hong Kong, S. Korea, India; Europe increasingly receives Atlantic crude
🔴 Very difficult
🚙 Motor vehicles
Tens of billions
>93%
Rest of world <7% combined
🔴 Extremely difficult
🔥 Natural gas
3.7B GJ
96.6%
East Asia via new LNG Canada terminal
🔴 Extremely difficult today
🌲 Softwood lumber
C$8.8B(2024)
~86%
Japan ~5%, China ~3%, UK ~1%, others ~5%
🔴 Difficult
🏗️ Aluminum
C$16.6B
~83%
Europe, Mexico and Asia, but much smaller markets
🔴 Difficult
✈️ Aircraft
C$12.1B(2024 aircraft only)
~60%
Italy, UK, France, UAE, Australia, others
🟠 Moderately difficult
🧪 Potash
C$9.0B
~47%
Brazil, China, India and other agricultural markets
🟡 Quite redirectable
🥇 Gold
C$55.7B
~19%
UK ~72%, China, Switzerland, others
🟢 Very redirectable
🌾 Wheat
23.4M tonnes
~9%
Indonesia 11%, China 9%, Japan 8%, Peru 7%, Colombia 6%, Bangladesh 5%
🟢 Highly redirectable
🌱 Canola seed
9.3M tonnes
<6%
China ~49%, Japan ~18%, EU ~12%, Mexico ~9%, UAE ~6%
🟢 Highly redirectable
1. Crude oil — 90% U.S.
This is the big one.
In 2025 Canada exported C$140.0 billion of crude oil, of which C$126.1 billion—90.1%—went to the United States. By physical volume Statistics Canada gets essentially the same result: 222.7 million m³ of Canada’s 249.9 million m³ of crude exports went south.
The Trans Mountain expansion is finally changing that equation. Looking specifically at crude shipped through British Columbia following TMX expansion, destinations from May 2024 through April 2025 were:
U.S. 51.9%
China 31.9%
Hong Kong 7.1%
Singapore 6.3%
South Korea 1.6%
India 1.2%
So Canada demonstrably can sell Western crude somewhere besides the United States.
But the problem is plumbing. Most Canadian production is connected by pipelines directly into American refinery systems. Replacing a buyer isn’t enough—you need pipelines, ports, tankers and refinery customers capable of taking the crude.
There is finally an escape valve: LNG Canada’s Kitimat terminal began exports in June 2025. It averaged 0.295 Bcf/day during the full calendar year calculation, and all of its LNG went to East Asia.
That’s strategically important, but still tiny relative to Canada’s pipeline flow into America.
Dependency: 10/10 today.
3. Autos — over 93% U.S.
This is probably Canada’s most structurally vulnerable manufactured export.
Statistics Canada says:
More than 93% of Canadian motor-vehicle exports go to the United States.
And in 2025 exports to the U.S. fell 9.6%, while exports elsewhere grew 14.6%. Because the non-U.S. base is so small, that diversification hardly moved the needle.
This isn’t simply finding Germans willing to buy Canadian cars. Ontario assembly plants are components of a North American manufacturing system. Engines, transmissions, electronics and components can cross the border repeatedly during production.
So replacing the American customer could require restructuring the industry itself.
Dependency: 10/10.
4. Softwood lumber — about 86% U.S.
Canada exported about C$8.8 billion of softwood lumber in 2024. Approximately C$7.6 billion went to America, implying roughly 86%.
Lumber can go on a ship, unlike Alberta natural gas trapped in pipelines. But lumber is bulky and relatively low-value per ton, so transportation economics strongly favor the huge American construction market next door.
Dependency: 8/10.
5. Aluminum — about 83% U.S.
Canada produced roughly C$16.6 billion of aluminum exports in 2025.
Exports to the United States were approximately C$13.8 billion.
That’s:
13.8 ÷ 16.6 ≈ 83% U.S.
Historically it’s been even more concentrated: in 2024, the U.S. took 91% of Canadian aluminum-product export value.
Canada has been diverting some aluminum toward Europe following U.S. tariffs, proving alternative markets exist.
But Quebec’s giant hydro-powered smelters are sitting conveniently beside the world’s largest aluminum-consuming economy.
Dependency: 8/10.
6. Aircraft — roughly 60% U.S.
This one is considerably healthier.
Canada exported C$12.1 billion of actual aircraft in 2024, with:
U.S. C$7.3B — 60%
Outside the U.S., significant customers included Italy and the United Kingdom, with many other international destinations.
And the broader aircraft/transportation-equipment export sector actually grew 9% in 2025.
Bombardier business jets, aircraft engines, simulators and aerospace components inherently have global markets.
Dependency: 6/10.
7. Potash — about 47% U.S. by 2025 value
Canada exported about C$9.0 billion of potash in 2025. Roughly C$4.2 billion went to the U.S.
That’s approximately:
47% U.S. / 53% elsewhere.
The most recent detailed volume destination breakdown available separately showed:
U.S. 53% Brazil 14% China 6% Others 27%
Potash is globally traded fertilizer. Farmers in Brazil, China, India, Southeast Asia and elsewhere need it regardless of Canadian-U.S. politics.
Canada would take some price/transportation pain losing U.S. demand, but this is nothing like autos or gas.
Dependency: 5/10.
8. Gold — only about 19% U.S.
Now we get to something almost completely fungible.
Canada exported roughly C$55.7 billion of gold in 2025.
This is why I wouldn’t even consider gold strategically dependent on the U.S.
A gold bar doesn’t particularly care whether its plane lands in London, New York or Zurich.
Dependency: 2/10.
9. Wheat — only 9% U.S.
And here’s where the picture changes completely.
Canada exported a record-ish 23.4 million tonnes of wheat in crop year 2024–25, spread across 68 countries:
Buyer
Share
🇮🇩 Indonesia
11%
🇨🇳 China
9%
🇺🇸 United States
9%
🇯🇵 Japan
8%
🇵🇪 Peru
7%
🇨🇴 Colombia
6%
🇧🇩 Bangladesh
5%
Everybody else
45%
That’s a beautifully diversified export market.
If America stopped buying Canadian wheat tomorrow, Canada would certainly notice—but 91% is already being sold somewhere else.
Dependency: 2/10.
10. Canola seed — U.S. is almost irrelevant
This was the surprise.
In 2024–25 Canada exported 9.3 million tonnes of canola seed.
Major buyers:
Buyer
Tonnes
Approx. share
🇨🇳 China
4.6M
49%
🇯🇵 Japan
1.7M
18%
🇪🇺 European Union
1.1M
12%
🇲🇽 Mexico
0.8M
9%
🇦🇪 UAE
0.57M
6%
Everyone else combined
~0.53M
6%
The United States doesn’t even make the top five for canola seed, meaning it must represent less than roughly 6%.
Important distinction: America is Canada’s biggest customer for processed canola oil, taking about 2.7 million tonnes in that same crop year.
So Canada is much more dependent on the U.S. for the processed oil than for the agricultural seed itself.
Seed dependency: ~1/10.
Put them in order and Canada’s vulnerability becomes obvious
U.S. dependence
Product
~97%
🔥 Natural gas
>93%
🚙 Motor vehicles
90%
🛢️ Crude oil
~86%
🌲 Softwood lumber
~83%
🏗️ Aluminum
~60%
✈️ Aircraft
~47%
🧪 Potash
~19%
🥇 Gold
~9%
🌾 Wheat
<6%
🌱 Canola seed
And that changes my interpretation of the Canada/U.S. trade argument quite a bit.
Canada’s vulnerability isn’t primarily:
“Nobody else in the world wants Canadian stuff.”
That is plainly false for wheat, canola, potash, gold and aircraft, and increasingly false for oil.
The actual vulnerability is:
Canada built several of its biggest industries specifically around physical access to the United States.
Gas pipelines go south. Oil pipelines overwhelmingly went south until TMX. Ontario automobile factories are integrated into Detroit’s supply chain. Quebec aluminum moves cheaply into the Midwest and Northeast. Canadian lumber can arrive at an American construction site by rail or truck rather than crossing an ocean.
That’s much harder to diversify than simply finding another customer.
And there’s another rather striking conclusion: Canada’s genuinely global exports are disproportionately the raw commodities—gold, wheat, canola, potash. Its highly manufactured North American industries—autos, aluminum products, lumber products—are considerably more U.S.-dependent.
That is probably the most revealing way to frame the whole Canada-U.S. trade relationship.
stock here: Canada has massive tariffs on US products, but they want “unrestricted access to US markets”. As a group, Canada is so ideologically broken it staggers, baffles. Group Psychosis.
Canada pretends that they are “fair” by allowing a certain quota, of product from US to be tariff free or nearly free, but these quotas are a joke, a pys-op (shitty one at that).
Their quota for cheese is equal to 4.2 days of Canadian consumption, and then the TARIFF= 245%
Their quota for Chicken is equal to 14 days of Canadian Consumption, and then the TARIFF = 238%
WTF is wrong with these people? And they walked away from the negotiating table before 50% tariffs are applied to Canada.
This is why the USMCA as a trilateral trade agreement is impossible to maintain. The only trade agreement construct possible is two clearly separate bilateral free trade agreements, one with Mexico and one with Canada.
Black Christian Pastor TORCHES Entire Muslim-Conquered Dearborn, Michigan City Council: ‘SHARIA LAW!’
Pastor Lorenzo Sewell gave one of the greatest speeches of our time…Asks one by one for city council members to DENOUNCE Sharia Law. Their answer tells you everything…… pic.twitter.com/g4jmOzOlbI
