Whattagame
Active Member
It wouldn't sit well with me, but not for the reasons you're getting at.
|
|
|
- Thread starter TAS
- Start date
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Indeed. It wouldn't sit well with me not because it would be unfair, but moreso because I would understand where they come from, and they wouldn't be wrong.
archited
Senior Member
David A
Senior Member
Unfortunately, there are always consequences of the political choices countries make, even for those who do not agree with them.
For instance, people in Canada are not traveling to the US as much, in part for political reasons but also because of all the additional bs now happening at the border.
This affects tourism to all US states, not just those that voted a certain way
For instance, people in Canada are not traveling to the US as much, in part for political reasons but also because of all the additional bs now happening at the border.
This affects tourism to all US states, not just those that voted a certain way
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Spoke with some folks who know more about the trade talks - the prevailing theory is that the commercials were an excuse to call off the negotiations, which is why Trump's initial reaction was "I would have done that too, if I were them".
TAS
Senior Member
Let's not forget these tariffs are emergency actions to protect the borders and the security and safety of American citizens!!
The US supreme court will be ruling on if this does indeed fall within the Emergency Powers Act (with Trump wanting to be there in the courtroom - his third place after home and work).
The US supreme court will be ruling on if this does indeed fall within the Emergency Powers Act (with Trump wanting to be there in the courtroom - his third place after home and work).
Last edited:
Whattagame
Active Member
Thank you for the reminder. With the nonstop flood of chaos, I forgot that the legal justification (regardless of how weak it was) is that Canada needs to stop the supply of fentanyl to the US. It's an outright lie, but it is nevertheless their reason for implementing the tariffs. They've completely abandoned that position in the recent and equally flawed round of rhetoric, and there should be trade action taken against the US government.
archited
Senior Member
Unfortunately the Supreme Court is "in the bag" for Trump so rational expectations there are pretty low.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, I feel that initial reaction was then followed by one where he realized the potential effectiveness of them. So he needed to shut them down and it also gave him an excuse for the lack of progress for trade talks.
If there is any good news for us now it is that there hasn't been any further information about the additional tariffs he threatened, so with the commercials gone they may just go away. Also, if the US gets rid of the Chinese tariffs, supposedly because of fentanyl, it becomes increasingly ridiculous to keep them on Canada.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
I don't think most people here "hate" Americans, but rather a few factors:
1. In general, it's just not good practice to be reliant to such an extent on another country for your nation's success; whether it be economically, diplomatically, or militarily. It puts the subservient country at the mercy of the larger country's whims, erodes its credibility and influence on the global stage, and makes it difficult for that country's leaders to chart a different path when in its best interests. I have American friends, but even pre-2016 I thought we were in a dangerous spot - not because I hated America (and I still don't), but because I loved Canada (and still do) and wanted it to stand more on its own feet rather than acting like America's younger sibling. Particularly when America is led by a president who changes his mind more times a day than
2. Not only Trump, but also his secretaries, the US Ambassador to Canada, and pundits like those on Fox "News" have quadrupled down on the annexation rhetoric - ranging from gaslighting that it's only a "term of endearment," to full-blown advocacy that Canada should not exist as a sovereign country.
3. It is official US government policy that Canada does not have a right to manufacture cars, or most other things, and it trying very hard to economically decimate us.
4. Regardless of how many votes he got or what the turnout was, voter perception might not matter so much in the future because, possibly most important of all:
5. The US is transitioning into a fascist regime before our very eyes, and we're stuck right beside it. You'll probably think I'm exaggerating here, but please humour me for a second. Here's how Oxford's dictionary of politics and international relations (2018) defines fascism. Keep in mind that it's largely unchanged from their 2008 edition - well before Trump was first in office, and thus demonstrably uninfluenced by contemporary US politics. Also, here's a screenshot of the full page so you can see what words I removed. Below each qualifier, I will add a note in italics explaining how I believe Trump's government is moving towards it.
A right‐wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. [...]
Oxford defines totalitarianism as follows: A dictatorial form of centralized government that regulates every aspect of state and private behaviour. Although the term was originally intended to designate fascist and communist regimes, totalitarianism is mainly associated with characterizations of the Soviet Union. Its proponents do not agree on when, if ever, the Soviet Union ceased to be totalitarian, but they tend to converge on the view that at some point the political leadership was both all powerful and totally illegitimate. For many commentators, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin’s death. However, others operating within the totalitarian paradigm point to institutional continuity, KGB harassment of dissidents, and the ever present possibilities of the reassertion of arbitrary state power until 1989.
Trump and his cronies, including justices in the Supreme Court, are heavily pushing the idea of "unitary executive theory", whereby Trump would have absolute control of the executive branch, unfettered by courts. Congress has ceded control over areas such as tariffs and fiscal policy, they are deporting people who they disagree with (most recent case being a British journalist), and have masked agents in unmarked cars grabbing people off the street if they don't happen to have satisfactory legal documentation on their person - or in some cases even if they do. And now they're even saying that broadcasters don't have the right to say negative things about Trump since they have a federal broadcast license, and that being "anti fascist," "anti-capitalist," or "anti-American" are signs of support for terror that must be acted upon by its security apparatus.
Genuinely fascist ideologies are: monist, that is to say, based upon the notion that there are fundamental and basic truths about humanity and the environment which do not admit to question; simplistic, in the sense of ascribing complex phenomena to single causes and advancing single remedies; fundamentalist, that is, involving a division of the world into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ with nothing in between; and conspiratorial, that is, predicated on the existence of a secret world‐wide conspiracy by a hostile group seeking to manipulate the masses to achieve and/or maintain a dominant position.
This one is pretty self-explanatory; the whole MAGA movement is based on fundamental "truths" about gender identity, the nuclear family, the mainstream media, etc. Trump and his followers regularly convey a "simplistic" mindset, such as placing America's success or failure solely on its use of tariffs throughout history, its military success as dependent on the name of the department responsible, the causes of inflation, the war in Ukraine, etc. Trump is highly transactional and, based on how those transactions go, sees countries as either for America or against America; you cannot be ambivalent. Heck, the same goes for companies and people. And of course, he and his administration have long complained about "the swamp," countries conspiring to exploit America through the free trade agreements it pushed on them, the "George Soros-backed globalist elites," etc.
1/2
CplKlinger
Senior Member
In content, these ideologies are distinguished by five main components:
(1) extreme nationalism, the belief that there is a clearly defined nation which has its own distinctive characteristics, culture, and interests, and which is superior to others;
As seen by how "America first" to them means America must make everything it buys, but other countries must gladly accept American goods, Trump's claim in 2023 that illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood of this country," the 51st state threats are a compliment (US Ambassador to Canada), and that it's an insult to them that Canadians would be horrified by that rhetoric (Fox News).
(2) an assertion of national decline—that at some point in the mythical past the nation was great, with harmonious social and political relationships, and dominant over others, and that subsequently it has disintegrated, become internally fractious and divided, and subordinate to lesser nations;
Trump and his supporters say this stuff a lot: America was great before Biden, America was great before free trade; America was great before 'woke', etc. And now it's being taken advantage of and the democrats/leftists are dividing everyone with hateful and violent rhetoric.
(3) this process of national decline is often linked to a diminution of the racial purity of the nation—in some movements the nation is regarded as co‐extensive with the race (the nation race), while in others, hierarchies of races are defined generically with nations located within them (the race nation), but in virtually all cases, the view is taken that the introduction of impurities has weakened the nation and been responsible for its plight;
See above, Trump on illegal immigrants: “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done." It's one thing to talk about the negative impacts of illegal immigration; it's another thing altogether to talk about a country's blood being poisoned, or made impure. For comparison, here's a line out of Mein Kampf: "For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew."
(4) the blame for national decline and/or racial miscegenation is laid at the door of a conspiracy on the part of other nations/races seen as competing in a desperate struggle for dominance;
I think I litigated this enough.
(5) in that struggle, both capitalism and its political form, liberal democracy, are seen as mere divisive devices designed to fragment the nation and subordinate it further in the world order.
They're now going after companies that say or do things they disagree with (look at how they bullied networks, law firms, and universities), calling the decisions of the free market "hateful" and "biased" when it impacts Trump or his supporters. And on that note, companies are punished and threatened if they do not reshore to America, and countries trying to maintain those industries are similarly targeted. What free market? And they're pushing republican states to gerrymander with the explicit goal of entrenching Republican political domination, accusing judges of being anti-American and overstepping their bounds, and pledging to send "monitors" to the polling stations in some blue states.
With regard to prescriptive content, the first priority is the reconstitution of the nation as an entity by restoring its purity. The second is to restore national dominance by reorganizing the polity, the economy, and society. Means to this end include variously:
(1) the institution of an authoritarian and antiliberal state dominated by a single party;
They're sure getting close, between the gerrymandering and election monitoring, the use of troops in the streets of multiple cities, and now their open deliberations about how to get Trump a third term.
(2) total control by the latter over political aggregation, communication, and socialization;
Not only are they bullying networks and suing newspapers, but their supporters are consolidating huge swathes of the media landscape (one is even in the process of buying the company that owns CNN), and about to get TikTok's US operations under the ownership and control of a board dominated by Trump supporters. And people who directly quoted Charlie Kirk after his death were threatened with legal action, deported (if on a visa), fired after the government pressured their employers, etc.
(3) direction by the state of labour and consumption to create a productionist and self‐sufficient economy; and
Again, just look at the tariffs and Trump's rhetoric justifying them. I mean sheesh, foreign kitchen cabinets are a "national security threat" now!
(4) a charismatic leader embodying the ‘real’ interests of the nation and energizing the masses. With these priorities fulfilled, the nation would then be in a position to recapture its dominance, if necessary by military means.
The guy literally said that the US airforce bombed British airports during the Revolutionary War, and that speech was lauded by his supporters - who then voted him in a second time. And despite being born into wealth, adorning everything in gold, and saying he recently learned about "an archaic word called groceries," he's seen as a man of the people who understands the common person in a way others don't. And his base genuinely believes America is respected and loved again because of his words and actions.
Such priorities were explicit in the inter‐war fascist movements, which indulged in racial/ethnic ‘cleansing’, established totalitarian political systems, productionist economies, and dictatorships, and of course went to war in pursuit of international dominance.
I'll only add that they're using bombastic language about bombing and destroying their enemies, revived the name "Department of War," mused about annexing Greenland and Panama with military force if necessary, and seem hell-bent on manufacturing cause for a war against Venezuela.
But such parties can no longer openly espouse these extremes, and national/racial purity now takes the form of opposition to continuing immigration and demands for repatriation; totalitarianism and dictatorship have been replaced by lesser demands for a significant strengthening in the authority of the state, allegedly within a democratic framework; productionism has become interventionism; and military glory has been largely eschewed.
lol
2/2
(1) extreme nationalism, the belief that there is a clearly defined nation which has its own distinctive characteristics, culture, and interests, and which is superior to others;
As seen by how "America first" to them means America must make everything it buys, but other countries must gladly accept American goods, Trump's claim in 2023 that illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood of this country," the 51st state threats are a compliment (US Ambassador to Canada), and that it's an insult to them that Canadians would be horrified by that rhetoric (Fox News).
(2) an assertion of national decline—that at some point in the mythical past the nation was great, with harmonious social and political relationships, and dominant over others, and that subsequently it has disintegrated, become internally fractious and divided, and subordinate to lesser nations;
Trump and his supporters say this stuff a lot: America was great before Biden, America was great before free trade; America was great before 'woke', etc. And now it's being taken advantage of and the democrats/leftists are dividing everyone with hateful and violent rhetoric.
(3) this process of national decline is often linked to a diminution of the racial purity of the nation—in some movements the nation is regarded as co‐extensive with the race (the nation race), while in others, hierarchies of races are defined generically with nations located within them (the race nation), but in virtually all cases, the view is taken that the introduction of impurities has weakened the nation and been responsible for its plight;
See above, Trump on illegal immigrants: “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done." It's one thing to talk about the negative impacts of illegal immigration; it's another thing altogether to talk about a country's blood being poisoned, or made impure. For comparison, here's a line out of Mein Kampf: "For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew."
(4) the blame for national decline and/or racial miscegenation is laid at the door of a conspiracy on the part of other nations/races seen as competing in a desperate struggle for dominance;
I think I litigated this enough.
(5) in that struggle, both capitalism and its political form, liberal democracy, are seen as mere divisive devices designed to fragment the nation and subordinate it further in the world order.
They're now going after companies that say or do things they disagree with (look at how they bullied networks, law firms, and universities), calling the decisions of the free market "hateful" and "biased" when it impacts Trump or his supporters. And on that note, companies are punished and threatened if they do not reshore to America, and countries trying to maintain those industries are similarly targeted. What free market? And they're pushing republican states to gerrymander with the explicit goal of entrenching Republican political domination, accusing judges of being anti-American and overstepping their bounds, and pledging to send "monitors" to the polling stations in some blue states.
With regard to prescriptive content, the first priority is the reconstitution of the nation as an entity by restoring its purity. The second is to restore national dominance by reorganizing the polity, the economy, and society. Means to this end include variously:
(1) the institution of an authoritarian and antiliberal state dominated by a single party;
They're sure getting close, between the gerrymandering and election monitoring, the use of troops in the streets of multiple cities, and now their open deliberations about how to get Trump a third term.
(2) total control by the latter over political aggregation, communication, and socialization;
Not only are they bullying networks and suing newspapers, but their supporters are consolidating huge swathes of the media landscape (one is even in the process of buying the company that owns CNN), and about to get TikTok's US operations under the ownership and control of a board dominated by Trump supporters. And people who directly quoted Charlie Kirk after his death were threatened with legal action, deported (if on a visa), fired after the government pressured their employers, etc.
(3) direction by the state of labour and consumption to create a productionist and self‐sufficient economy; and
Again, just look at the tariffs and Trump's rhetoric justifying them. I mean sheesh, foreign kitchen cabinets are a "national security threat" now!
(4) a charismatic leader embodying the ‘real’ interests of the nation and energizing the masses. With these priorities fulfilled, the nation would then be in a position to recapture its dominance, if necessary by military means.
The guy literally said that the US airforce bombed British airports during the Revolutionary War, and that speech was lauded by his supporters - who then voted him in a second time. And despite being born into wealth, adorning everything in gold, and saying he recently learned about "an archaic word called groceries," he's seen as a man of the people who understands the common person in a way others don't. And his base genuinely believes America is respected and loved again because of his words and actions.
Such priorities were explicit in the inter‐war fascist movements, which indulged in racial/ethnic ‘cleansing’, established totalitarian political systems, productionist economies, and dictatorships, and of course went to war in pursuit of international dominance.
I'll only add that they're using bombastic language about bombing and destroying their enemies, revived the name "Department of War," mused about annexing Greenland and Panama with military force if necessary, and seem hell-bent on manufacturing cause for a war against Venezuela.
But such parties can no longer openly espouse these extremes, and national/racial purity now takes the form of opposition to continuing immigration and demands for repatriation; totalitarianism and dictatorship have been replaced by lesser demands for a significant strengthening in the authority of the state, allegedly within a democratic framework; productionism has become interventionism; and military glory has been largely eschewed.
lol
2/2
archited
Senior Member
I completely agree @CplKlinger my comment was directed solely at people who hold irrational prejudices. The U.S. at the governmental level is extremely chaotic presently and there is a huge backlash growing in intensity -- incidentally much larger than the backlash against the MAGA-lite government at the reins in Alberta.
Whattagame
Active Member
#NotAllAMericans
David A
Senior Member
archited
Senior Member
Things are happening not specifically making headline news with heritage media that will cause a few heads to spin in the near term.