I can't get behind the notion that we should somehow boycott GM for making a prudent business decision. We never gave them free money we gave them a loan and they paid it back. They technically don't owe us anything and if staying was so important the government could have written some conditions into the loan so again that's on us.
Really? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/loans-canada-account-finance-auto-sector-bailout-2009-gm-chrysler-1.4722529
Also, GM's acceptance of subsidies from Canadian Governments (including provincial and municipal) goes way back.
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/gm-canada-a-100-year-history-of-benefitting-from-taxpayer-dollars/
so?
I understand why you want to defend GM. You like GM vehicles, buy GM vehicles, and feel a need to defend them and their vehicles, as it legitimizes your purchasing decisions. There's nothing wrong with that. We are almost all guilty of it (unless we are completely divested in the product we bought - then it doesn't matter - however that is certainly not the people on this forum...we are all very invested in our car-buying-decisions).
It is called Choice-Supportive Bias. You downplay the faults of the car you bought, while at the same time amplifying its pros. I've noted the same effect in this forum r.e. winter tires. Everyone who has Blizzaks swears that they have better snow/ice traction than even the best summer tire on a dry, hot day.
It's why No-San used to vehemently deny Subaru's head-gasket issues.
Or why some FGC owners refuse to acknowledge the litany of electrical problems they may face.
Or why RRocket won't stop talking about Lexus.
Or why Ford Owners are the quietest people, because there is just nothing good to say about a Ford.
![:rofl2:](https://www.autos.ca/forum/Smileys/CarTalk/rofl.gif)