Politics

[Graham Hunter]

I thought the beginning was the most telling where trump takes credit for carneys win. Nothing like patting yourself on the back for election interference. I’m sure his maga faithful will be along to tell me I’m wrong you, the same ones that blame election interference every time trump doesn’t win something.

His comments during the election were totally interference! Seems it's ok for him but not for anyone else! narcissist?

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

His comments during the election were totally interference! Seems it's ok for him but not for anyone else! narcissist?

What ever do you mean it’s just “trolling” we’ve heard that for a couple hundred pages on here as if that’s proper behaviour for a world leader. In the eyes of the maga faithful the tangerine tyrant can do no wrong.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

If carney had any testicular fortitude he’d of demanded a reciprocal meeting in Canada.

I wasn’t aware liberals had any testicular fortitude

 

[mdwest]

If carney had any testicular fortitude he’d of demanded a reciprocal meeting in Canada.

the problem is Trump would refuse.. and in turn twist the screws on Canada even harder..

like him or hate him.. the truth is he is in the position of leverage and power.. bigger economy.. significantly more buying power.. significantly less to lose if a deal isn't reached in the short and in the mid term.. Americans are already becoming comfortable with tariffs.. all of the screaming a month ago has pretty much ceased at this point and the stock market has bounced back to 41000, with "greed" now the driving factor for investors (according to the CNN tracker) as opposed to "extreme fear" that was driving it a few weeks ago.. Politically most Americans have already moved on.. While Canada remains politically focused on tariffs and trade with the US..

Trump (while acting like a bit of a dick) offered that these are "friendly" negotiations and not like what occurred with Zelenskky..

The last thing Carney and/or Canada needs is to end up in the same position Zelenskky found himself in..

While the current position sucks.. the Zelenskky position would be significantly worse..

Carney wants to hold onto power.. Canadians are already projecting that if he cant score some major wins fairly quickly he might be looking at losing power in a year or two at most..

Talk is cheap.. Carney telling Canadians "we're prepared to do some belt tightening.. we're prepared to ensure some suffering" wont mean shit when unemployment hits 10% and the cost of a liter of fuel rises to $4 CAD..

He can talk all day long about increasing support to the EU and NATO efforts in Ukraine.. about cutting off potashe to the US... and all the other attention getting headlines that are easy to grab..

But if he cant produce in a very short period of time he is toast.. and the Canadian economy will be toast right along side of him..

which would probably be wonderful for Polievre..

but would genuinely suck for the average Canadian until Polievre managed to get into office (and then meet with Trump in the Whitehouse.. because Trump wouldn't allow himself to be summoned or demanded by Polievre either..)..

Assume the first round of negotiations go well.. I think its fairly likely that Trump would do the next round of head of state meetings in Canada... or perhaps move them somewhere that everyone would see as a net positive (Mar a Largo is where he brings his "friends".. or maybe Camp David, etc)..

But if its demanded by Canada.. I feel 100% certain he'll provide a quick middle finger and that will be the end of things until Canada capitulates (much like Zelenskky did within hours of being shown the door at the Whitehouse)..

Id guess there will be dozens of meetings and hundreds of man hours spent negotiating between Lutnick, Bessent, and Canadian representatives though before the heads of state meet again..

 

[Foxi]

I think they are waking up to the reality that non occupation really isn't an option unless they want to be doing this again in 5-10 years..

The culture of the Palestinians is such that things arent changing without following one of a couple of different paths.. none of which are appealing..

Mass genocide (not really an option)

Elimination of Iran from the map (not really an option at the moment)

Occupation of Gaza (and potentially the West Bank).. not a great option.. but more appealing than the other two..

My firm has done a good bit of work in both Jordan and Israel directly supporting Palestinian law enforcement (before the Oct 7th attack.. the work was aligned with both Israel and the US State Departments requirements and was paid for by Israel and the USG).. As a result we had cause to interface directly with quite literally thousands of Palestinians (individuals and families).. We also did a significant amount of work in Lebanon.. our people in Beirut supported Lebanese "community oriented policing" activities.. which means they were working inside Palestinian neighborhoods, dealing with Palestinian families, etc routinely....

When a significant number of young palestinain women (perhaps most?) will straight up tell you that their purpose in life is to birth the next generation of martyrs for Hamas/Hezbollah.. and the overwhelming majority of young (military aged) males will straight up tell you their purpose in life is to see the establishment of the Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel... you arent left with a whole lot of options..

While there are exceptions.. and there are certainly Palestinians that simply want to raise their children in a safe place, free of conflict, etc.. that want to make a decent living, put food on the table, and ensure their kids have career opportunities, etc.. The sad reality is their numbers arent nearly significant enough to influence lasting peace...

The war that Israel is currently fighting wont end until Palestinian culture dramatically changes.. Israel can hammer them enough to hit the pause button.. but that's all they would be doing without selecting one of the options above.. once the Palestinans have time to recover, regroup, amass weapons and ammo again, etc.. the fight would be back on... whether the party in charge is called Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, or anything else.. doesn't matter..

In 2008, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas , a far-reaching plan to establish a Palestinian state.
Condition: no air force and no navy
Abbas refused
You also have to really want peace.

 

[mdwest]

In 2008, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas , a far-reaching plan to establish a Palestinian state.
Condition: no air force and no navy
Abbas refused
You also have to really want peace

Completely agree..

The Palestinians dont want peace (most don't anyway.. I am sure that some do..)... what they want is their own state with no conditions attached.. and they want that state to be where Israel is located..

Neither of those things are going to happen in our lifetimes..

So until Palestinian culture changes.. Israel isn't left with a whole lot of options... and none of them are good for the Palestinians.. (there is going to be significant pain and suffering that's going to occur from this point forward until culture changes)..

 

[Foxi]

Completely agree..

The Palestinians dont want peace (most don't anyway.. I am sure that some do..)... what they want is their own state with no conditions attached.. and they want that state to be where Israel is located..

Neither of those things are going to happen in our lifetimes..

So until Palestinian culture changes.. Israel isn't left with a whole lot of options... and none of them are good for the Palestinians.. (there is going to be significant pain and suffering that's going to occur from this point forward until culture changes)..

unfortunately what you write is true.The Arab states need the Palestinians as a " wild dog" in their front yard to keep up the hatred of Israel.In the Arab world the Palestinians are unpopular to the max,but useful.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

the problem is Trump would refuse.. and in turn twist the screws on Canada even harder..

like him or hate him.. the truth is he is in the position of leverage and power.. bigger economy.. significantly more buying power.. significantly less to lose if a deal isn't reached in the short and in the mid term.. Americans are already becoming comfortable with tariffs.. all of the screaming a month ago has pretty much ceased at this point and the stock market has bounced back to 41000, with "greed" now the driving factor for investors (according to the CNN tracker) as opposed to "extreme fear" that was driving it a few weeks ago.. Politically most Americans have already moved on.. While Canada remains politically focused on tariffs and trade with the US..

Trump (while acting like a bit of a dick) offered that these are "friendly" negotiations and not like what occurred with Zelenskky..

The last thing Carney and/or Canada needs is to end up in the same position Zelenskky found himself in..

While the current position sucks.. the Zelenskky position would be significantly worse..

Carney wants to hold onto power.. Canadians are already projecting that if he cant score some major wins fairly quickly he might be looking at losing power in a year or two at most..

Talk is cheap.. Carney telling Canadians "we're prepared to do some belt tightening.. we're prepared to ensure some suffering" wont mean shit when unemployment hits 10% and the cost of a liter of fuel rises to $4 CAD..

He can talk all day long about increasing support to the EU and NATO efforts in Ukraine.. about cutting off potashe to the US... and all the other attention getting headlines that are easy to grab..

But if he cant produce in a very short period of time he is toast.. and the Canadian economy will be toast right along side of him..

which would probably be wonderful for Polievre..

but would genuinely suck for the average Canadian until Polievre managed to get into office (and then meet with Trump in the Whitehouse.. because Trump wouldn't allow himself to be summoned or demanded by Polievre either..)..

Assume the first round of negotiations go well.. I think its fairly likely that Trump would do the next round of head of state meetings in Canada... or perhaps move them somewhere that everyone would see as a net positive (Mar a Largo is where he brings his "friends".. or maybe Camp David, etc)..

But if its demanded by Canada.. I feel 100% certain he'll provide a quick middle finger and that will be the end of things until Canada capitulates (much like Zelenskky did within hours of being shown the door at the Whitehouse)..

Id guess there will be dozens of meetings and hundreds of man hours spent negotiating between Lutnick, Bessent, and Canadian representatives though before the heads of state meet again..

Trump would refuse because he’s got no interest in allies, the art of the deal is shaft everyone you can and let them negotiate for the Vaseline.
How do you think it affects relations going forward?
The next time the west coast burns down why should Canadians risk their lives fighting the fires? The next time a hurricane destroys New Orleans why should we send aid within hours while still in the cross hairs of the storm ourselves? The next time your country is attacked and you close your airspace why should Canadians open their homes to your countrymen?

It’s often stated on here that the Liberal/socialist experiment of the last 10-15 years was an abject failure how do you feel the raw capitalist experiment that is going on now will be viewed?

When did America first come to mean America only?

 

[mdwest]

Trump would refuse because he’s got no interest in allies, the art of the deal is shaft everyone you can and let them negotiate for the Vaseline.
How do you think it affects relations going forward?
The next time the west coast burns down why should Canadians risk their lives fighting the fires? The next time a hurricane destroys New Orleans why should we send aid within hours while still in the cross hairs of the storm ourselves? The next time your country is attacked and you close your airspace why should Canadians open their homes to your countrymen?

It’s often stated on here that the Liberal/socialist experiment of the last 10-15 years was an abject failure how do you feel the raw capitalist experiment that is going on now will be viewed?

When did America first come to mean America only?

I dont think it has anything to do with no interest in allies..

its a basic business premiss..

If Im in a position of power and leverage.. I don't enter into negotiations on neutral turf.. and I certainly don't do it on the opposing party turf... I dictate the basic terms (when I will be available, what I am prepared to speak to or work on, where the meeting will occur, etc.. ).. when two truly even parties want to negotiate or work out a deal, then you might figure out something more in "the middle"..

At the end of the day, Trump sees this (as do most Americans) as Canada having the weaker hand to play.. so why would the US allow Canada to make any demands (to include when and where meetings occur)?

Regarding west coast fires.. well.. there are a couple of other issues at play there.. and that's wholly unrelated to tariffs (although I get your argument that Canadians now may not "like" Americans, therefore why risk their lives?

The first issue is Americans often go to Canada to fight fires as well.. for example, in 2023 the US sent 2700 fire fighters to Canada to fight your western wildfires..

Contrast that to the 200 Ontario firefighters, 60 Quebec firefighters and 100 firefighters from Toronto proper that deployed to California earlier this year to help with their wildfires..

You also have multiple international agreements in place that require the US, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, and a few other countries to assist each other in the event of large scale fires.. you cant bitch about NAFTA/USMCA and demand the US honor it (it has even in light of the tariffs) but then threaten to walk away from other international agreements (unless of course you want all international agreements taken off the table)..

You cite Canada helping out post Katrina with rescue teams and supplies.. that's absolutely true..

But you fail to mention US personnel deploying rescue teams and supplies to Canada to assist when the Halifax Explosion occurred.. (point being we have sent rescue teams back and forth to assist each other for well over 100 years)...

You act like the relationship has historically been a one way street with Canada continually rushing to aid its southern neighbor in a time of need.. without recognizing it has indeed been a two way street and Canada has relied on the US just as often, and more often than not, the US has responded with far greater numbers of people, far greater supplies, and far greater dollars involved..

When America started meaning America only depends on context.. most people around the world refer to the US as "America" somewhat loosely and as an abbreviation.. since it is the United States of America... I know of almost no one that refers to North America as "America" as an abbreviation since that might lead to confusion (is South America or Central America not also "America"?

How I think it effects relationships going forward... I think it depends..

Can Canadians think analytically? Or are responses going to be emotionally based?

If Canadians gravitate toward emotion.. then clearly the relationship will be harmed long term...

That said.. Im not sure a substantial number of Americans (US Citizens) care.. at least not enough to push Trump out of office early or to force changes on him from Congress or the Courts...

If Canadians gravitate toward fact and analytical thought.. I think the relationship can recover fairly quickly.. at the end of the day all anyone wants is a better life for themselves and their children.. whether Trump is a dick or a hero is inconsequential.. in 3.5 years he'll no longer be POTUS..

But Canadas response today may well impact Canada for much longer than 3.5 years if they cant figure out how to play the game and come out with minimal scratches and bruises in the near term..

 

[OxfordTheCat]

You cite Canada helping out post Katrina with rescue teams and supplies.. that's absolutely true..

But you fail to mention US personnel deploying rescue teams and supplies to Canada to assist when the Halifax Explosion occurred..

You act like the relationship has historically been a one way street with Canada continually rushing to aid its southern neighbor in a time of need.. without recognizing it has indeed been a two way street and Canada has relied on the US just as often, and more often than not, the US has responded with far greater numbers of people, far greater supplies, and far greater dollars involved..

Presumably that's because the Halifax Explosion occurred more than a century ago, in 1917

One would think that if the situation was remotely close to what you describe, there would be something approaching a contemporary example...

 

[mdwest]

Presumably that's because the Halifax Explosion occurred more than a century ago, in 1917

re-read the edited post..

the point is simple.. there are dozens of examples spanning more than 100 years of the US sending relief, aid, assistance, etc to Canada during times of crisis.. and dozens of examples of Canada doing the same for the US..

its a two way street..

to consider it otherwise is either disingenuous or an admission of ignorance..

We even do "joint" rescue work when both countries are burdened with a crisis (2011 downed aircraft on the Canada/Maine border)..

 

[Graham Hunter]

What ever do you mean it’s just “trolling” we’ve heard that for a couple hundred pages on here as if that’s proper behaviour for a world leader. In the eyes of the maga faithful the tangerine tyrant can do no wrong.

Where did I say trolling?

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I dont think it has anything to do with no interest in allies..

its a basic business premiss..

If Im in a position of power and leverage.. I don't enter into negotiations on neutral turf.. and I certainly don't do it on the opposing party turf... I dictate the basic terms (when I will be available, what I am prepared to speak to or work on, where the meeting will occur, etc.. ).. when two truly even parties want to negotiate or work out a deal, then you might figure out something more in "the middle"..

At the end of the day, Trump sees this (as do most Americans) as Canada having the weaker hand to play.. so why would the US allow Canada to make any demands (to include when and where meetings occur)?

Regarding west coast fires.. well.. there are a couple of other issues at play there.. and that's wholly unrelated to tariffs (although I get your argument that Canadians now may not "like" Americans, therefore why risk their lives?

The first issue is Americans often go to Canada to fight fires as well.. for example, in 2023 the US sent 2700 fire fighters to Canada to fight your western wildfires..

Contrast that to the 200 Ontario firefighters, 60 Quebec firefighters and 100 firefighters from Toronto proper that deployed to California earlier this year to help with their wildfires..

You also have multiple international agreements in place that require the US, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, and a few other countries to assist each other in the event of large scale fires.. you cant bitch about NAFTA/USMCA and demand the US honor it (it has even in light of the tariffs) but then threaten to walk away from other international agreements (unless of course you want all international agreements taken off the table)..

You cite Canada helping out post Katrina with rescue teams and supplies.. that's absolutely true..

But you fail to mention US personnel deploying rescue teams and supplies to Canada to assist when the Halifax Explosion occurred.. (point being we have sent rescue teams back and forth to assist each other for well over 100 years)...

You act like the relationship has historically been a one way street with Canada continually rushing to aid its southern neighbor in a time of need.. without recognizing it has indeed been a two way street and Canada has relied on the US just as often, and more often than not, the US has responded with far greater numbers of people, far greater supplies, and far greater dollars involved..

When America started meaning America only depends on context.. most people around the world refer to the US as "America" somewhat loosely and as an abbreviation.. since it is the United States of America... I know of almost no one that refers to North America as "America" as an abbreviation since that might lead to confusion (is South America or Central America not also "America"?

How I think it effects relationships going forward... I think it depends..

Can Canadians think analytically? Or are responses going to be emotionally based?

If Canadians gravitate toward emotion.. then clearly the relationship will be harmed long term...

That said.. Im not sure a substantial number of Americans (US Citizens) care.. at least not enough to push Trump out of office early or to force changes on him from Congress or the Courts...

If Canadians gravitate toward fact and analytical thought.. I think the relationship can recover fairly quickly.. at the end of the day all anyone wants is a better life for themselves and their children.. whether Trump is a dick or a hero is inconsequential.. in 3.5 years he'll no longer be POTUS..

But Canadas response today may well impact Canada for much longer than 3.5 years if they cant figure out how to play the game and come out with minimal scratches and bruises in the near term..

It wasn’t my intention to express it as thought it was one sided, the point I’m trying to convey and doing a poor job of is why are we throwing away a 150 years of cross border cooperation and relationships over greed. Now and going forward every interaction will be tainted by this period of time.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

What ever do you mean it’s just “trolling” we’ve heard that for a couple hundred pages on here as if that’s proper behaviour for a world leader. In the eyes of the maga faithful the tangerine tyrant can do no wrong.

Tangerine Tyrant, now that's funny.
But as I would say during Trumps first term, "Trump is an Axxhole, but he's my Axxhole"!

To all our Canadian friends, we are still brothers under arms and have so much more in common than we have differences. I do not consider myself MAGA faithful but I support most of what Trump is trying to do. Even if his methods are questionable.

Trump's modus operandi is to throw a handful of crap against the wall and see what sticks.
Let's all hang in there!

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Where did I say trolling?

You never sir I was using your post to make a point about others who down play his actions.

 

[USN]

India launched strike against Pakistan. Pakistan artillery retaliates. Supposedly India will cut off water.
Very fluid situation and all reports are not to be trusted till after verification from multiple sources.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Tangerine Tyrant, now that's funny.
But as I would say during Trumps first term, "Trump is an Axxhole, but he's my Axxhole"!

To all our Canadian friends, we are still brothers under arms and have so much more in common than we have differences. I do not consider myself MAGA faithful but I support most of what Trump is trying to do. Even if his methods are questionable.

Trump's modus operandi is to throw a handful of crap against the wall and see what sticks.
Let's all hang in there!

Wish I could truly take credit for that one my skipper come up with it the other day on the water, I figured sense some of us are always getting accused of saying orange man bad anyway it would get a laugh.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Tangerine Tyrant... funniest thing I have seen today.

Well played sir.

MAGA: We represent the Tangerine Tyrant... the Tangerine Tyrant... the Tangerine Tyrant...

 

[mdwest]

It wasn’t my intention to express it as thought it was one sided, the point I’m trying to convey and doing a poor job of is why are we throwing away a 150 years of cross border cooperation and relationships over greed. Now and going forward every interaction will be tainted by this period of time.

We're very likely agreeing and not seeing it again lol...

My position is it doesn't have to be tainted..

Trump is a dick.. so what?

Trump over states things all the time... so what?

in 3.5 years he will be gone...

So find a way to deal with it.. listen to what he says.. filter out the white noise (there is a ton of it.. and admittedly that's hard to do at times)... and get to the meat and potatoes of the matter..

He said very clearly today he doesn't want the US buying vehicles made in Canada.. or even 50% made in Canada.. he wants the US automotive industry to move back entirely to the US.. he also said very clearly that he doesn't want the US buying Canadian steel.. he wants the US steel industry to grow again and to produce all of the steel the US needs..

ok.. so that's really going to suck for Canada.. that's tens of thousands of jobs and billions upon billions of dollars on just those two things alone..

So what is Canada prepared to do about it?

Trump NEVER leads with his best and final offer (BAFO).. there is ALWAYS room for negotiation..

So if Canada wants to retain those automotive jobs.. what case does it make to the Trump administration for Canada being the best possible choice for the US?

Canada employing people and Canada making money isn't a good argument...

Could a case be made where Canadian made can be cheaper for US buyers? Could a case be made where the USG could share in the profits in some way by letting those industries stay in Canada (tariffs? but tariffs low enough that they don't kill the industry, but allow the USG get a taste of the action?)... Could a case be made where Canada keeps the ability to export cars to the US, but gives ground somewhere else where the US could benefit?

What wont be agreed to is the current status quo.. Canada will have to give something up.. there's no getting around that..

kicking, screaming, and responding with emotion wont help.. if anything that will further embolden Lutnick, Bessent, Trump, et al.. and if Canada doesn't take the opportunity to put sensible options on the table all that does is leave the US in a position to tell Canada what it thinks is most sensible (i.e. the Doug Ford tactic of making threats and offering no solutions didn't fare well at all... while the Mexico approach of telling Trump "hey dude.. we understand what you're feeling.. how about we offer to do XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ rather than that A, B, C, stuff you asked for.. would that work for you?" has worked for the Mexicans very well so far..

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Presumably that's because the Halifax Explosion occurred more than a century ago, in 1917

One would think that if the situation was remotely close to what you describe, there would be something approaching a contemporary example...

One would assume he used the Halifax explosion as and example knowing his audience, he was talking to a Nova Scotian.