So Canada votes to continue on its present leftward course
I don’t think the victory of Liberal Mark Carney as Canada’s new prime minister should be any sort of surprise. Polls have been predicting it, for one thing. But more importantly, leftward is the direction in which Canada has been going for at least ten years. Canada and the US are very different countries with very different traditions, and although I cannot say how much Trump’s bluster and threats towards Canada influenced the outcome, I think I am safe in claiming that Trump certainly didn’t help the Conservative cause in Canada at all.
In sum, however, Canadians are responsible for their own political decisions.
The Liberal victory didn’t give the Liberal Party a majority, however:
As the votes were counted through the night, the Liberals were just shy of a majority government, which would mean the governing party would need the support of what is left of the NDP and the Quebec sovereigntist Bloc Québécois party.
On a stage surrounded by dozens of supporters early Tuesday, Carney thanked Poilievre to a decidedly muted response from his supporters before turning a laser focus on Trump.
“America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country,” Carney said.
“These are not these are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. That will never, that will never, ever happen. But we also must recognize the reality that our world has fundamentally changed,” he said.
You can see why I say that Trump’s rhetoric and actions became a helpful issue for the Liberals. I’m not sure what that “decidedly muted response” is about, but perhaps there is already some buyers’ remorse, just as there is in Britain for Starmer.
The losing Conservative, Poilievre, had this to say:
“We got the highest share vote our party has received since 1988,” Poilievre added. “We didn’t quite get over the finish line, yet we know that change is needed. But change is hard to come by. It takes time.”
I’m not sure what it would take, but certainly not just time.
More insight into the election can be found in the Edmonton Journal, a Canadian paper based in Alberta (probably the most conservative area of Canada). The situation seems to have been somewhat like what happened in France and in Britain, in that the left was uncharacteristically united in order to stop the right:
Poilievre led his Conservative Party to its greatest height ever, at least if you go by popular vote. Stephen Harper’s CPC peaked at 39.6 per cent in the 2011 election. But more than 42 per cent of Canadians voted for Poilievre’s CPC in this 2025 general election.
But there was just one problem. For the first time since it formed in 2003, the CPC faced a largely united left-of-centre, with Mark Carney’s Liberals getting roughly 43 per cent of the vote.
That result will give the Liberals roughly 160 seats to 150 for the CPC, not enough for a Liberal majority, but enough to shake Alberta politics, bringing on calls for separation from angry Albertans …
The author of the piece seems to agree that Canada is basically a liberal/left nation – and that if that segment of the populace unites, the right will not be able to win. In this case, the more leftist party than the Liberals united with the Liberals to defeat the Conservatives. However, even the Conservatives tried to distance themselves from Trump:
It wasn’t until former [Conservative Party] leader Stephen Harper said he’d rather burn Canada to the ground than give an inch to the blowhard Trump that the CPC found its own footing. By then, it was too late. Carney had won over Canada’s gigantic anti-Trump faction with trumped-up fears that Trump was going to steal our land and our water.
Wow, talk about NeverTrumpers! “Burn Canada to the ground” – that’s quite an extraordinary statement from Harper. But it shows the depth of how much Trump’s recent threats are detested in Canada, even by the supposed right.
At least one of us is confused about what happened in Britain; as I understand it, it wasn’t that the left was united, it was that the right split the vote between Reform and Conservatives. The Liberals won a vast swathe of 40-30-30 plurality decisions. They ended up with less than 50% of the vote, but one of their biggest majorities ever in Parliament.
Boobah:
Yes, that’s actually what I’m referring to, although I didn’t go into enough of an explanation to make the French and British situations clear in this particular post (I’ve discussed them both in other posts). In Britain, a relatively united left beat a VERY divided right. For example, see this comment on my post about Starmer’s victory:
Just had lunch with our friend, another retired ex-power industry guy. He reports that their former colleague in Sweden is virulently anti-Trump. The contagion is worldwide. He also says (he’s British and has Commonwealth family and friends worldwide) that the British, Australian, and Canadian government health systems are barely functioning.
I don’t WANT Canada as part of the US, not unless the Canadian people can do something about their insanity problem. They’re on an unsustainable path.
a concern for the future,https://substack.com/@elizabethnickson/p-159943682
I read a report by Alex Epstein, an energy guru, in which he opines that Canda is only producing about40% of the oil and gas it is capable of. With its large oil reserves and small population, he believes Canda could be a Western Saudi Arabia.
The effects of their climate change beliefs and the desire of so many Canadians for a benevolent, socialistic sort of government has led to a decline in their wealth and economic well-being.
I believe it was Gordon Scott on another thread that mentioned that the richest province ion Canda is now poorer than the state of Mississippi.
Based on those facts, it seems undeniable that Canada would be better off with a growth-oriented government, or as our 51st state. Unfortunately, too many people will not look at economic facts and make decisions based on their best economic interests.
Back in the day (1968- 1993), I flew with a number of Canadians who had migrated to the U.S. for airline jobs. All were conservative and anti-big government. They all became U.S. citizens. I wonder how many conservatives have left or given up on Canda now.
For many years, (1994-2011) we owned a timeshare in Whistler BC.
We watched Whistler go from a free and laid-back place into a heavily regulated, unwelcoming place. That experience made me realize how easy it is for a country with such riches and capable people to be brought to heel and beggared by their socialist brothers/sisters. It’s certainly a cautionary tale.
It’s going to take a few more power failures like the one in Spain to begin to change minds about Zero Carbon. It was very close to becoming an all-continent shutdown. When Minnesota or Canada shut down in mid-winter it will be even more devastating than when it happened in a cold snap in Texas, and people died there.
A people that would repeatedly punch themselves in the face because they didn’t like something Trump said about Canada is maybe not that suited for self-government.
I am struggling to think of any election in America that was swayed by something a foreign leader said about America.
A chart I saw elsewhere suggested that it was older Canadians who drove the results and said they were motivated by Trump, which makes sense to me, since old people are who watches the TV news and reads the big newspapers here.
Trump is apparently Emmanuel Goldstein for the Administrative State… if he didn’t exist they would invent him….
“…barely functioning…”
Psst. That’s what happens when you let in all kinds of immigrants and make it your policy to provide them almost immediately with health care (along with other subsidies or outright gifts—housing assistance, food assistance)…
Shocking, I know!!—and who could have possibly foretold such results??!!
Nonetheless, if citizens have to suffer in order to ensure that you stay in power forever and ever, amen, well…that’s how the cookie (and the country) crumbles…
Barry, subsidized immigrants do damage, but also central management of a complex system doesn’t work well.
well thats curious, but not surprising,
https://x.com/paulsperry_/status/1917305668530213367
Of course, Mueller was treated as an angel, like fauci with the candles,
“America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country,” Carney said.
Huh? If my last visit to Vancouver is any indication, they’ve already given it away to the Chinese and the Indians.
It’s not as though Canada’s “Conservative Party” actually even is that. Canadians’ choices are various flavors of managerial leftist. The people who want to blame Trump for the Liberal victory either don’t know this, or count on their audience not knowing it. They can’t show that Conservatives winning would result in anything better or even different for America. Just want to blame SOMETHING on Bad Orange Man.
Orange Man Bad snookered the Canadians. Trump would have to be a political idiot not to realize that making Canada into the USA’s 51st State would permanently turn control of the House over to the democrats. However, by claiming to ‘want’ Canada… he’s ‘influenced’ Canadians to elect Carney. Predictably, Carney’s leftist supporters are sure to continue to demand that Alberta’s fossil fuel production be further strangled to death. Which will sooner or later force Alberta and even Western Canada to secede. An eventuality which will greatly benefit the US both economically and geo-strategically.
GB…is spot on.
In the basket with those fossil fuel strangulations, Canada will likely now be forced into some sort of trade deal renegotiation or face increasing tariff & import restriction pressure. Canada is hard-pressed to survive economically without the $440B in US trade. Is there enough EU, UK, or Chinese trade money to make up that difference in Canada?
As the Boss always says…wait & see.
Canada stopped being Canada when they changed their flag in ’65 and put Trudeau in office in ’68. It takes a generation or two for such things to take over … now, here we are. Being half-Canadian myself, I’ve lost touch with my Canadian relatives in the same manner my Democrat friends have faded away – probably for many of the same reasons. I don’t bother crossing the border anymore.
Miguel: thanks for the Elizabeth Nickson link. Not a fan of Carney or his wife, it would appear. Here’s her pre-election prognosis on what will happen should Carney win, as he now has:
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/a-ghoul-in-a-suit-with-the-ethics
Like Geoffrey Britain, she thinks that the Prairie provinces will go their own way. We’ll see.
I found Nickson through a reference and a link on James Howard Kunstler’s old blog (“Clusterf*ck Nation”). Interesting writer. Her mother was apparently a victim of the CIA’s MK Ultra Project at the Allan Memorial Institute, a former psychiatric hospital in Montreal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Memorial_Institute
She wrote a novel about it: “The Monkey-Puzzle Tree” (1995). I used to walk past the Allan on my way to and from class at McGill. I thought it was a creepy-looking place even before I knew its history.
For those who may have missed the Steyn link from miguel (and h/t Hubert) on an earlier thread.
https://www.steynonline.com/15249/losers-gotta-lose
@Hubert: Her mother was apparently a victim of the CIA’s MK Ultra Project at the Allan Memorial Institute, a former psychiatric hospital in Montreal
MKUltra was the super-secret CIA project researching ways to brainwash and torture people — including efforts to create programmed assassins. Pretty gruesome stuff.
The Canadian effort was run by Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron.
_________________________________
In January 1957, the CIA started a subproject of MKUltra in effort to broaden their scientific research. “Subproject 68”, conducted at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal under the direction of psychiatrist Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron, represents one of the most infamous and ethically controversial endeavors within the MKUltra program.
This subproject aimed to explore innovative techniques for manipulating and controlling human behavior, particularly through the methods of “psychic driving” and “depatterning”. Psychic driving involved subjecting patients to continuous playback of recorded messages, often with themes of self-improvement or identity reinforcement, while they were under the influence of powerful psychoactive substances such as LSD or barbiturates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra
_________________________________
Cameron wasn’t just some tame shrink. He was one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the world.
_________________________________
He served as president of the American Psychiatric Association (1952–1953), Canadian Psychiatric Association (1958–1959), American Psychopathological Association (1963), Society of Biological Psychiatry (1965) and the World Psychiatric Association (1961–1966).
_________________________________
I had to deal with my mother’s psychiatrists. I didn’t like them.
“A people that would repeatedly punch themselves in the face because they didn’t like something Trump said about Canada is maybe not that suited for self-government.” Yes, precisely. My experience with Canadiens, although (mercifully) limited has convinced me that they have a huge inferiority complex, and are therefore much inclined to take offense and react hyperbolically to all slights, especially imagined ones.
“Wow, talk about NeverTrumpers! “Burn Canada to the ground” – that’s quite an extraordinary statement from Harper. But it shows the depth of how much Trump’s recent threats are detested in Canada, even by the supposed right.”
So, let me get this straight. Citizens of a sovereign nation react strongly when the president of the superpower next door repeatedly refers to their PM as the “governor of the 51st state,” repeatedly threatens to annex said sovereign nation, and launches a full scale trade war. And that makes them “NeverTrumpers!” ??
The Kool-Aid around here is starting to get pretty strong.
Bauxite:
Why on earth would you think it’s wrong to call Harper a NeverTrumper? The statement indicates that he detests him at this point, as do many other Canadians (and Americans) – and I would wager that some of them (not Harper, however) detested him even before he started threatening their sovereignty. But threatening their sovereignty would naturally intensify that feeling. Harper – who is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada and as such was prime minister prior to Trudeau – says (and I quoted) that he “would rather burn Canada to the ground” than “give an inch to blowhard Trump.” I repeat: would rather burn his own country to the ground than give an inch to Trump. That seems to me to be the essential NeverTrumper statement, especially given that Harper is on the Canadian right.
@ miguel & Hubert – thanks for the Elizabeth Nickson links. The first one (miguel) was kind of hard going, and frankly the first half sounded like some unhinged right-wing conspiracy theorist, but the second half was a sober assessment of the dangers of a Carney premiership. The second post (Hubert) was more comprehensible to me, and even more frightening, perhaps for that reason.
Strongly recommended.
Her vitae would not portend her current political position!
“Elizabeth Nickson was trained as a reporter at the London bureau of Time Magazine. She became European Bureau Chief of LIFE magazine in its last years of monthly publication, and during that time, acquired the rights to Nelson Mandela’s memoir before he was released from Robben Island. She went on to write for Harper’s Magazine, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times Magazine, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and the National Post.”
AesopFan:
I guess she’s a changer.
Harper’s rhetoric is not meant to be taken literally.
==
The problem with the attitude manifested in Harper’s remark is that the emotional reaction to Trump’s poses is given priority over the wager on the most salutary direction of Canadian public policy. The Liberal Party of Canada has manufactured a situation wherein 23% of the population was born abroad, 6.5% are in Canada on temporary residency permits, and annual immigration flow now exceeds the number of live births (many of which are to those who have scant historic connection to Canada). BTW, the inclusion of illegal aliens in such totals is haphazard. Population replacement is the order of the day in Canada and the new prime minister is a man who has not lived in Canada for 12 years and has spent much of his life carrying two passports. This is what the Canadian electorate has allowed their odious political class to do to them. What’s more, since 7 October 2023 you’ve had mass demonstrations by obstreperous imports making it bloody plain what the implications of this are, buttressed by regular news stories about the influence operations of the Chinese government.
neo – It’s clear as a bell that Harper was reacting to Trump’s behavior rather than to the man himself. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Harper, Poilievre, or any other Canadian conservative wouldn’t have been happy to work with Trump had he simply refrained from his idiotic and destructive behavior towards Canada. in fact, Poilievre led the Conservative party to the 25-point polling lead that it enjoyed before Trump’s election by emphasizing immigration and crime issues, similar to Trump.
That’s not “NeverTrump” at all, it’s a completely appropriate and predictable response to a blowhard bully who repeatedly threatened Canadian sovereignty and then took significant action to disrupt its economy. How, pray tell, should a Canadian conservative have reacted to Trump’s actions to avoid being “NeverTrump?”
Words like “NeverTrump” and “TDS” are used a lot as an excuse to avoid thinking too hard about Trump’s flaws. The man is going to burn the American right to the ground.
Bauxite:
Your argument doesn’t make sense to me. Harper’s words were very extreme. He says he would destroy Canada in order to save it from Trump. What a bizarrely hyperbolic thing to say. Not at all a realistic or thoughtful analysis of the situation. Something like “Of course any prime minister should resist Trump’s threats and Canada must remain strong, independent, and free” would have been fine.
Plus, you seem to think I’m making excuses for Trump, when I’ve actually said – I think quite clearly – that Trump’s “bluster and threats” hurt the Conservative cause in Canada and helped the Liberals. Maybe you should read my post more carefully.
You also wrote, “Words like ‘NeverTrump’ and ‘TDS’ are used a lot as an excuse to avoid thinking too hard about Trump’s flaws. The man is going to burn the American right to the ground.” Those phrases certainly are not often used that way here, and never used that way by me. I’ve written many posts about Trump’s flaws, including the present post where you seem to have missed what I actually wrote about his flaws. I have never shied away from his flaws – nor have most of the commenters here.
Just to take one recent example involving Trump’s initial tariffs on Canada, I wrote this on March 4 of this year:
Overly broad and needlessly antagonistic – as well as not accomplishing his goals. In case you wonder, that’s not praise.
, “Words like ‘NeverTrump’ and ‘TDS’ are used a lot as an excuse to avoid thinking too hard about Trump’s flaws. The man is going to burn the American right to the ground.”
==
Chuckles. Trump is adept at tearing the masks off people and the reaction to him revealed what motivates certain public figures, and it isn’t what motivates flesh and blood Republican voters. Some of these public figures are highly consequential (Glitch McConnell) some at one time had some influence on elite opinion (George Will), and some are merely people who managed to cadge salaried employment from philanthropies and commercial media (Mona Charen, who has never been the primary earner in her household). For the Republican voter, they all have one thing in common: they’re not your friends (and likely never were). The fixation on news cycle shizz in re Trump (much of it tendentious) is a diversion to cover a reality: they’re not in favor of what he’s aiming to do; notable also is their indifference to the abuses of the legal profession and the security state in re Trump.
neo – So the proper, patriotic response to repeated annexation threats and an unprovoked trade war is a polite but firm “no thank you,” and any more than that means you are motivated by hated of Trump? That’s silly.
CC™ ever and always strikes at The Great Orange Whale, even to the depths of hell itself. Midshipman Ahab he be.
IIRC, at one time Trudeau was pushing the idea that Canada’s population should be pumped up to 100 million or more, and that the idea that Canada had a core identity was “offensive” to him. Sounds to me like he’s been listening to the same people who are promoting the idea that America “needs” to have a billion residents to “compete” with China, while at the same shouting “don’t have children! It’s bad for the planet!”
I find myself in sympathy with many of Trump’s policies. For example, I understand why the U.S. cannot waste its resources on opposing Russia in Ukraine when Europe has not yet amped up its military might, since China poses a far greater threat, one that Europe can hardly mitigate. We have to look to Japan, South Korea, Australia et al for help there.
BUT… as one who spent years in western Canada, I cannot understand what motivated Trump’s oafish behavior toward Canada in the first few months of his Presidency!
Canadians, even the ones of a conservative bent in Alberta, do not want to be Americans, and we Americans should not want them to be!
neo – So the proper, patriotic response to repeated annexation threats and an unprovoked trade war is a polite but firm “no thank you,” and any more than that means you are motivated by hated of Trump? That’s silly.
==
You’re stupid, or you think we are. Canada has issues, and the proper response is to address those issues. Trump is a nuisance to them and not much more. Canada’s issues antedated Trump’s prominence and they will continue without regard to what is accomplished in re trade relations. They would continue if Trump keeled over dead from a stroke.
==
One can reasonably say Canada does not address its issues because (1) the political class as is manufactured the issues and (2) the electorate is too enervated to punish them in any way for it. There are patriots in Quebec and patriots in Anglophone Canada. They’re a minority. (And, from what I’ve seen, people who object to the direction of Canadian public policy are long on complaints and short on constructive ideas).
==
Who are there last two prime ministers? The current incumbent is an echt example of the international cosmopolitan class. The previous incumbent was a nepot whose history included two failed attempts at graduate school and seven years as a high school teacher. No, he did not teach physics; he was the @&#% drama coach. From age 24 to age 36, coach drama and then fall on his face in the Canadian university system was what he did with his life. Then Liberal Party sachems came up with the bright idea of giving him a seat in parliament and then (six years later) putting him in charge of the party. And the electorate bought it. The last ten years have had a catastrophic effect on the Canadian body politic (as well as the housing market) and Canadian voters react with cud chewing indifference. Yeah, Trump’s the problem here.
Art Deco – So Harper’s response is “NeverTrumpism” because, in your opinion, Canada has bigger problems than Trump. You’re basically telling Canadians that they are wrong to worry about the President of the superpower next door repeatedly threatening their sovereignty, repeatedly belittling their Prime Minister, and launching a trade war and that they should be more worried about a bunch of other things about which you will enlighten them? Wow.
Look, I don’t disagree with you about the Liberal Party in Canada, but the presumptuousness of telling citizens of another country what they should really be worrying about is breathtaking. Especially given the nature of what you’re downplaying.
Trump is threatening to extinguish the independent nation of Canada. Threats to a nation don’t get more serious than that.
Art Deco – So Harper’s response is “NeverTrumpism” because, in your opinion, Canada has bigger problems than Trump. You’re basically telling Canadians that they are wrong to worry about the President of the superpower next door repeatedly threatening their sovereignty, repeatedly belittling their Prime Minister, and launching a trade war and that they should be more worried about a bunch of other things about which you will enlighten them? Wow.
==
I have little to say about Harper’s remarks and do not care (which is perfectly obvious to people not trying to put words in my mouth). Trump’s trash talking is not a threat. Even if it were, there’s no indication that the Liberal Party would be more deft and vigorous in the defense of Canada than would be what passes for the Canadian right.
==
I’ve already reviewed what the political class in Canada has been up to in re population replacement and if you were familiar with dissenting media you could read about the condition of the housing market, the explosion in vagrancy, and the decay in public order. That’s quite apart from the systematic abuse of rank-and-file Canadians by state prosecutors and the ‘human rights’ apparat. Somehow this isn’t a threat to Canadian sovereignty and quality of life, but a tariff on Canadian wood is. The Canadian public doesn’t need me to ‘enlighten them’. The troubles are visible to them when they try to get through traffic in Toronto and rent an apartment. This is not motivating to them. That it is not is not Trump’s doing.
==
Turtler has done us the favor of stomping you flat on the other thread.
@Bauxite:Trump is threatening to extinguish the independent nation of Canada. Threats to a nation don’t get more serious than that.
He also “threatened” to murder pedestrians on Fifth Avenue for votes.
Ridiculous exaggerations of what we know Trump actually said don’t help you persuade anyone here, Bauxite.
It might make sense to think about what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you hoping to persuade people to your views? Then don’t tell stupid lies or insult us as cultists.
Or are you just an old man yelling at clouds? Carry on as you have been then.
Bauxite:
You simply don’t get it, although many have tried to explain.
@Art Deco
Thank you kindly. And now that a brief errand is over I am going to stomp him flat in this one as well.
@neo
There are none so impervious to “getting it” as those who pointedly refuse and do not want to get it. This is one reason why I have long ago stopped assuming Bauxite is operating honestly or in good faith on this issue. Whatever Bauxite’s merits or demerits on other cases, the Great Orange Whale Brainrot makes yet another dishonorable, dishonest idiot. It’s ironic he accuses us with terms like cultists and kool aid when he acts so much like one.
And before Bauxite gets the “bright” idea of trying to claim this comment doesn’t address the “substance” of their remarks….
A: That’s coming.
and
B: I’ve addressed the substances of a host of your claims on Orange Man Bad so much I do not think many people would fault me for taking a rain check this time, since you really have very little to offer and even less of substance, especially given how you uncritically play useful idiot for the most extreme MSM propaganda when you think it serves your agenda.
Not that I Am going to take a rain check on this one though, you’re not going to be that lucky this time.
Flat as a fritter, he’s not a bright critter.
Our very own CC™. Yes he persists, Midshipman Ahab.
Bauxite on April 30, 2025 at 3:45 am said:
. . . . Words like “NeverTrump” and “TDS” are used a lot as an excuse to avoid thinking too hard about Trump’s flaws. The man is going to burn the American right to the ground.
That’s some significant TDS.
@ Turtler to Bauxite > “I’ve addressed the substances of a host of your claims on Orange Man Bad so much I do not think many people would fault me for taking a rain check this time, since you really have very little to offer and even less of substance, especially given how you uncritically play useful idiot for the most extreme MSM propaganda when you think it serves your agenda.”
To quote myself on another thread (vanity, vanity…):
“As Neo explained with prior trolls such as Manju and Montage, their comments give her, and us [and you], a chance to respond and set the record straight, as well as a view into the Left-World as a warning to what others of their ilk are pushing.
I admit that most of us do not respond with the evidence and verve that you exhibit, which is always an educational exercise in the art of inventive invective.”
@Bauxite
The dishonest, gaslighting sophist says right before proceeding to take jump on the MSM’s train in using some of the most deranged, dishonest, twisted framing of an event.
Firstly: Setting aside a detailed analysis of these given claims and how much they are actually true versus how much are media narratives meant to paper over Canadian government malfeasance and support the Liberal Party, yeah yeah it would make them Never Trumpers. If you were less of a dishonest idiot with Orange Man Brain Rot intent upon trying to capitalize on each and every real or perceived misstep by other commentors here who are less than deluded by your idolatry of the GOPe or at least hate of Trump, you’d recognize that. The difference is, we’d by and large believe the Canadians would be correct to be NeverTrumpers in the same way much of the Ukrainian Population are NeverPutiners.
But as we’ll dive in, let’s talk about it.
Secondly: “repeatedly refers to their PM as the “governor of the 51st state,”
I realize you’re a fucking idiot who probably doesn’t know much about Trump that isn’t reported on outside the MSM, but even by those lofty standards this would be “Needs Context” as the fact checkers go.
Firstly: he he (JOKINGLY) OFFERED TO MAKE THEIR PM GOVERNOR OF THE 51ST STATE IF CANADA JOINED THE UNION.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/did-trump-suggest-canada-become-51st-state-and-offer-trudeau-to-become-its-governor-here-are-details/articleshow/115915929.cms
It was only AFTER that that he began to (again, JOKINGLY) refer to the Prime Minister as Governor and Canada as a State.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trudeau-governor-great-state-canada-1.7406226
Do I think Trump would like if all else was equal Canada to join the Union? Maybe. Perhaps even probably. Do I think he actually thought Trudeau was governor? No. Moreover, if these were actually meant as as a “threat” to annex them, you GENERALLY WOULDN’T BE OFFERING THEIR ESTABLISHED HEAD OF GOVERNMENT THE CHANCE TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE.
Now, do I think these jokes were welcome or productive when repeated this often? No, no I do not, and I rank them as some of Trump’s more unjustifiable and easily avoidable blunders.
But to doublethink yourself into thinking Trump is threatening Trudeau and Canada by this is fucking incoherent, illogical bullshit. And not coincidentally, it’s very similar to the kind of hysteria promoted by Liberal Party and Leftist outlets to try and gin up support, using what I acknowledge was a dumb blunder by Trump or attempt at levity to do so.
But when you actually break this shit down and acknowledge the chronology and how it went, you will see how this was very obviously not a threat to annex Canada, and cannot be seen as such (in contrast to threats of tariffs or the like, which were threats – albeit of a lesser degree – and used in a different way).
Thirdly: “Launches a full scale trade war.” Debatably true, but what gets pointedly left the farq out of this is what Canadian trade policy to the US has been for several years prior.
https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/CAN/partner/USA/product/all
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/panel-finds-canadas-practice-reserving-dairy-quotas-inconsistent-with-usmca-2022-01-04/
In short, the Canadians conducted a rather onesided trade war on the US with tariffs as per their usual domestic producers, taking advantage of Biden etc. al. Trump unsurprisingly found the Canadian government to be walking back from prior agreements and decided to pursue his usual economic philosophy regarding tariffs (sensible or insane as it may be) in response. Probably as a negotiating strategy to get the Canadians back to the table to negotiate the tariffs down bilaterally in the hopes of getting more support against the CCP.
Fourthly: It’s ironic that as a history and military nerd by vocation and habit my response to Harper’s nonsense about burning the country to the ground was in a different vein to Neo or Art Deco’s, albeit on a similar issue. Scorched Earth tactics were used quite a bit in Canadian military history during wars at home, and including against invading US troops (indeed, the British Army probably used biological warfare during the 1775 Quebec Campaign). But the practice there was expressly to burn PART of the country to the ground and then let the Americans (or whoever the enemy was, like earlier the French/British/Iroquois/etc) have it so they’d be wandering a desolate landscape without supplies, often during the scalding summer or dead of winter, for the direct benefit of the rest of the country which would shelter from the invaders and regroup and restrengthen for future counterattacks.
Burning down the entire country was counterproductive to purpose and would be an act of suicidal spite, not even patriotic or nationalist defiance. And while Art Deco’s statement that this was obviously not meant to be taken literally (were such wisdom only applied by others to Trump as well as Harper and others!!), it does speak to a frankly deranged reaction to a trade war with the US hitting back on tariffs and what could GENEROUSLY be veiled as veiled diplomatic threats and more likely blunt and ill-conceived jokes.
It also points to another great problem. The Conservative Party squandering what lead it had and uncritically being the dog’s tail wagged by the Libs, uncritically accepting the Left’s framing of the case (not unlike what Bauxite points out).
This is something Canadian Native Mark Steyn pointed out with Poilievre himself.
https://www.steynonline.com/15249/losers-gotta-lose
(SNIP)
I think Steyn is overly harsh on Poilievre due to the personal bad blood over the AFD Interview on Steyn’s show, and even he admits Poilievre was “least worst” Con Leader. But it still points to an issue that Poilievre and the Conservative Leadership had fighting back against the Canadian Left’s framing of the issue. Which is one reason why their advantage in the polling was less decisive than it looked and ultimately chimerical, even before Trump. Though Trump did not help.
We’re one paragraph in one comment in, and Bauxite has already demonstrated themselves to be quite the work.
Between you and Karmi that’s not surprising, though with Karmi now bounced hopefully for the last time due to Neo IDing the glitch in the system maybe that will fix. But if you are so distraught at people not signing up with the MSM’s narratives and the Uncritical Trump Hate Cult like you did, you are welcome to leave any time you wish. It might be ill advised and be throwing years of commenting under the bus over petty stubbornness, refusal to get a clue, and uncharitable bad faith, but that would be in keeping with your conduct on this subject.
You need a new bell supplier. Some of us on the other hand have memories longer than that (in much the same way the problems with Romney and McCain’s GOTV strategy vanished in a haze of statistical malfeasance).
Moreover, even more than Harper was reacting to Trump’s behavior, he was reacting to the Left Wing Canadian (and US) Press’s hysteria and demonization of Trump and his real and imagined behavior. Trump’s actual behavior was not sterling but I think even Neo is being too harsh in accepting that Trump was “threatening their sovereignty”. In context his conduct and actions (that we can actually verify, unlike the usually-off-the-record-and-anonymously-deniably-“sourced” claims from the Canadian Lib Governments under Trudeau and Carney) amounted to some of his usual schmoozing and joking along with some diplomatic and economic hardball. Unwelcome for Canadians? Sure.
Worth providing back to back mainstream media hysteria about simulations of a US-Canadian War and the results thereof and mythical narratives of Carney heroically ignoring Trump? No. Absolutely not.
Trump is not blameless in this story but his sins were far less ones of commission than ones of omission, and after he walked in to a trap the Liberals had (whether consciously or just something to do) he was impotent in countering the Left’s narrative about him threatening Canada or seriously talking about annexing it (made worse by his more serious but similar sounding talks on Greenland). Probably in the belief Poilievre and the Canadian Tories were not that useful as partners and that the benefits of being seen as standing strong but being willing to negotiate would outweigh those of the backlash towards him.
I think he made the wrong call, as does Neo (albeit for different reasons), but this is still very different from the utter fucking hysteria and delusion you seem to be sharing with the likes of Poilievre, Harper, Trudeau, and Carney.
The economics beg to differ, as does Canadian slacking on things like NATO Commitment. Doesn’t mean a less chummy and softer spoken approach wouldn’t have been better, but the fact remains is that the Canadian government has stoked anti-American sentiment for years (And I used to be a fan of Murdoch Mysteries and a host of other CBC Programs, so don’t try and argue that point with me) and took advantage of US laxity to pus hits own protectionist agendas, tariffs, and trade wars.
Hold that “thought” there, because this is something Bauxite and other Blame Trump Only fans like bringing up, but a closer look shows how it does not hold up as the sole or even primary reason.
I quoted the comments to Legal Insurrection before, on the other thread.
https://thenewneo.com/2025/04/28/heres-a-thread-for-the-canadian-election/#comment-2799807
I will do so again.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/04/canadas-new-leader-liberal-mark-carney-or-conservative-pierre-polievre/#comment-1648808
and I will do so again.
And if we actually look at the link Christopher B shows, a few things become evident.
A: This advantage was at its greatest AFTER Trump was elected and indeed AFTER Trump was inaugurated, around January 20th, months after some of the first sparring over tariffs and the Governor joke.
B: The “25 Point Lead” is only towards the Liberal Party, and it is largely chimerical. While the Conservatives had a 44.8% (almost 45%) polling compared to the Liberal Party’s 20%-21.9% or so, the Liberal Party’s natural partners like the NDP had about 17.6-19% and the Greens had about 3.8-4.1%, with the Fair Weather Swing Vote of the Quebecois Autonomists/Separatists in BQ being between 7.8 and 8.5%.
Put the core leftist parties together and they AT WORST equaled the Conservative peak, and even exceeded it. Add the BQ and it is a win. The key issue was consolidating the left wing vote around the Liberal Tentpole, which things like Trudeau’s resignation and Carney’s appointment achieved, as well as Poilievre’s incompetence and inaction resting on his laurels when his opponents were not.
I think Trump hurt the Con Party on this and helped the Libs, but he did not create this fundamental dynamic. Worse, this points to a major problem in Canadian politics, where even with the seemingly unprecedented right wing surge, the parties representing federalist right wing Canadians were still a clear minority with at best a plurality (with an unlikely Con-PPC marriage getting at best something like 47% of the vote, with them dependent on the BQ for a majority, and still roughly equal to the left block).
https://www.rebelnews.com/why_did_pierre_poilievre_lose_the_election
This is why Ezra Levant – himself a Canuck – points that:
Of course, the same people who use these polls to try and demonize and crucify Trump as seemingly the sole or main person responsible are not going to say farq all about this precisely because it undermines their attempts to pin all of this on Trump. Acknowledging how fragile even this seemingly decisive lead by the Canadian Conservatives was and how the Canadian Right is hobbled by the Quebec Issue, Canadian culture, and Westminster System to being at best a plurality and that this dynamic was clearly a problem well before Trump does not help their case even if it would help diagnose and treat the underlying problems.
This is true, and also why I believe Steyn is far too unkind to Poilievre for making progress against the intense headwinds by the CBC and Liberal Party media. But he was fundamentally not active or expanding his advantages during this crucial time, which is why Trudeau’s resignation was so crippling to his campaign and why Trump’s follies and missteps hurt him so.
But this also points to a wider issue I kept harping on of left wing media and messaging dominance. As bad as you think Trump is (and as bad as he may actually be) he is nowhere near as bad as the strawman the likes of the CBC put out. Which is why if Bauxite spent a fraction of the ire he did on the frankly deranged messaging by Canadian leftist establishment figures on this being a 1812/1941 Great Patriotic War Struggle messaging about Canadian-US War as he did on Trump, I’d be much more inclined to take the complaints about Trump seriously.
But no. Instead Bauxite walks hand in club with the overwhelmingly left wing MSM media cult (while engaging in truly heinous and disgraceful character assassination towards others compounded by intellectual dishonesty and laziness) and assumes the gospel of Bauxite Flavored TDS will be well received.
And when he is shocked – SHOCKED – to find out that we’re not impressed, lashes out about Kool Aid.
Ok, how?
“Blowhard bully.” Those in glass houses should not throw stones, you absolute piece of shit idiot. That term quite handily describes you.
As for the rest? It’s at best passable as a response (factoring in things like heat of the moment temper) to the imaginary strawman you have propped up that actually fit what was described.
Which you and your MSM friends are using as an excuse to *avoid having to motherfucking prove Trump actually fits that description. *
Particularly the “threatened Canadian sovereignty” horseshit. Which we are overwhelmingly reliant upon the Liberal Party dominated Canadian Government for claims of, and which they generally have not provided any proof of the desire to eliminate the 1908 Treaty. But which you and the likes of Poilievre fell into. This is the problem with allowing proven liars (which I note includes Trudeau and Carney) to frame the message, and while Trump deserves a part of that blame the idea he wanted to gin the Canadian media and culture up into an unhinged quasi war scare is deranged. Especially since many of the accusations (especially the most extreme ones you are reliant on) are unsubstantiated and alleged, and they were not accompanied by things like flyovers of Canada, federalization of National Guard units or the deployment of the military to the border, or so on.
Indeed they were accompanied by surgical (or not so surgical) downsizing to accompany reforms and resizes of the military.
But I’m guessing most people reliant on the CBC or you for their news would not be aware of that.
But sure, it’s 1812 again because Trudeau said so.
You are a fucking gullible idiot.
Which is a fair point, and had Trump actually behaved like how the CBC ALLEGED him to have (or even Trudeau and Carney) I’d be inclined to defer to them. But the chances Trump actually did so are between slim and Snowball in Hell.
Of course you don’t want to address that fact because you want to weaponize Gell-Mann Amnesia and gaslight those of us with a better understanding of politics- and especially Canadian politics- against us so that we drink the TDS Kool Aid unless you insult us and call us cultists again.
Grow. The. Fuck. Up. And. Get. A. Grip.
On occasion, yes. And I have tried to be quite harsh on that. In particular I have spoken at length about Trump’s flaws and what I feel he did wrong, both on this case and in general.
But considering your conduct, I think you are far more guilty of using a bunch of incoherent, dishonest, unhinged balderdash and excuses (many of them propaganda pieces driven by known left wing liars) to avoid thinking too hard about Trump’s boons and strengths. This is one of them.
And in particular you are using this as an excuse to avoid thinking too hard about Poilievre, Harper, and the Canuck Right’s flaws. In spite of them being transparent if you do some math or listen to some with more experience of dealing with them.
Totally the sober, rational assessment of a reasonable, understanding, contemplative sort. And not at all an unhinged, illogical, kneejerk, emotions driven reaction by a gullible idiot.
Side note to everyone else: do you recall Bauxite using this language to refer to the likes of Biden, Obama, Harris, or the like? I won’t rule out the possibility or even probability he has but it is downright striking how little caustic fire he rains down on them nowerdays compared to Trump. To the point where he was reliant upon tying Trump to AOC and claiming basically any conservative republican could have done what Trump did in 2024.
https://thenewneo.com/2025/04/17/david-hogg-plans-to-pull-the-democrats-to-the-left/#comment-2798068
(PS Bauxite, is that substance enough for you?).
Anyway, moving on.
Correct, that would be silly. But even more silly is your using this dishonest, objectively false strawman as a representative of what actually happened. It points to a pathological lack of integrity or cool, as well as more than a little bit of idiocy.
So let’s take this by chunks.
“Unprovoked trade war.” Doesn’t exist. Trump’s trade policy towards Canada was directly prompted by Canadian trade policy towards the US going back years, largely in the form of Canadian tariffs of US Goods. I linked to some of the details above. Even if you don’t agree with Trump’s policies, you don’t get to claim this was “unprovoked.”
Secondly: “repeated annexation threats.” Ok, where are they? You keep reiterating this in lockstep with the most delusional, unhinged far left narratives but you are scarce on providing examples like the ones I do from Putin, Medvedev, and others within the Kremlin or groups tied to it towards Ukraine, and can and have done with those towards Hamas, Fatah, and their frenemies towards Israel.
And this is all the more jarring because if the Canadian Government ACTUALLY believed these were “annexation threats” the UN is right there and as habitually anti-Trump as ever, so they could file a complaint to use it to rally around support. Ditto with the EU. But they have not done so.
Because unlike you, as dysfunctional, dishonest, and indeed flatly stupid as the Canadian Liberal Party can be, they are not SO stupid or dishonest as to believe these could be interpreted as real annexation threats by even the OIC and co in the UN.
Which is why this entire response of yours to Neo is a dishonest, bad faith insult to her and her intelligence, and that of myself and anybody else bothering to read this dreck of yours.
Which is objectively true, unless you want to fight me over things like Liberal Party corruption or CCP influence. Or how Trudeau helped cause a diplomatic meltdown with the likes of India and other Arctic Countries. Which you aren’t going to want to do because you are not going to be in a good position to win.
Yes, they are on that note.
Or at most if they are actually, truly convinced that Trump was “repeatedly threatening their sovereignty” (because apparently they are as deluded as you are due to aggressive messaging) THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE GOVERNOR GENERAL AND PRIME MINISTER’S PHONES ACROSS THE ROOM FROM REPEATED RINGING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT CANADA NOT DOING MORE TO DEFEND ITSELF, AND COMPLAINING TO BODIES LIKE THE UN AND WTC ON THE MATTER.
Because Trudeau did not. Neither did Carney. In no small part because the WTC would probably flambee the Canadians at least as hard if not harder than they do Trump, and because the UN would laugh them out of the room, even if they habitually hate the US and Trump.
This points to a fundamentally unhinged but unserious stance of LARPing that Trump is a threat to their sovereignty but not actually acting as if he is. Much like your position is fundamentally unserious, fundamentally unhinged, and fundamentally dishonest.
You mean like the Prime Minister repeatedly belittled Trump and other US Presidents and Presidential Candidates? And have for years? Often on taxpayer dime including with fictional media?
https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/after-days-of-insults-trump-and-trudeau-pal-around-at-g7/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtS9ugYW-o4
https://dailycaller.com/2024/12/11/proud-feminist-justin-trudeau-distraught-that-americans-didnt-vote-for-first-woman-president/
That latter one is particularly useful because it was a significant and unprovoked diplomatic screwup with Trudeau insulting not just Trump and his government but also the American public, and it happened well before the “Governor” Issue. All of which goes completely unmentioned by you. I wonder why?
Rules for Thee but Not For Me, I suppose.
Trump’s trade policies were a reaction to the Canadians and their own trade wars with US goods, as he pointed out.
Art Deco’s response to this is more than good enough, but again. The idea that Canadians are completely unthinking or unaware of these problems is deluded. There’s a reason Trudeau had to resign and Carney had to step in. Because even with the CBC and other media outlets carrying water for the Libs the problems were too apparent. But it also shines a major light upon problems with the Conservative Party and the Canadian public, and not just on Trump.
Problems you do not want to address and which you believe insincere, flippant wordplay is a suitable substitute for while trying to turn Trump into a scapegoat.
This got tedious years ago.
Oh the fucking irony.
A: It’s hilarious you want to try and lecture Art Deco about “the presumptuousness of telling citizens of another country what they should really be worrying about” while you demonstrate your presumptuousness (as well as a bunch of other words starting with P i could write) trying to lecture US about what we should worry about (and how it’s largely Trump) and how if we do not agree with your often ill-founded, biased, and/or objectively wrong kneejerk stance we must be cultists of Trump.
B: Many Canadians are well aware with the problems of their country and party, even if they do not know enough.
C: You picked a hell of a time to try and make this particular argument just before much of Western Europe’s Green Energy Grid went offline, thus underlining how everyone in the world telling the likes of the Iberians that putting their energy grid on “Green Energy” and making it so inflexible and fragile was a bad idea…. were completely justified.
But you aren’t actually operating off of first principles. You’re not operating out of any principles. You bend, twist, and reframe as you wish to try and continue your unhinged vendetta against Trump for making you eat crow.
What is that Nature, oh Bauxite? Am I supposed to believe the person who never looked over or scrutinized the comments on the link Neo put forth knows the truth?
No he is not. He has at worst advocated maritime border adjustments with Canada and VOLUNTARILY offering Canada entry into the Union, most likely as a joke or posturing.
An actual threat to extinguish the independent nation of Canada would be actionable in many ways, starting diplomatically. If Trudeau or Carney had actual evidence Trump did what you are alleging, I have every reason to believe they’d be broadcasting it, and have solid reason to believe even you would provide some.
Israel could not be reached for comment, most likely due to the rocket barrages.
We get it. You hate Trump. To a frankly illogical and irrational degree. But that doesn’t justify hating and gaslighting us. And that is exactly what you do. Lying and gaslighting people is an act of manipulation and hate, and that is what your claims are. Frankly, I would not be surprised if Neo puts you in the moderation box for conduct like this, because I’d have goddamn banned you for this kind of conduct.
And the fact that you are so irrational and unhinged you did not even think through your own arguments into their second order effects (“What Would Carney Do If He Actually Believed Trump Threatened to Annex Canada Rather Than Using That Rhetoric as a Cheap Political Hatchet Job to Gin Up Votes?”) speaks to your failures.
If you want to be taken seriously, stop being an idiot, stop assuming the rest of us are idiots, and do more research.
And now my main response comment is in moderation, awaiting analysis from the Blogmother.
Turtler:
I just freed it from its bonds. I think it may have gone into moderation automatically because of number of links, perhaps.
@neo
Thank you kindly. And yeah I figured it was probably the links and/or spicy language towards Bauxite and some parts of the left.
There are, it’s been said, conservative sentiments in the prairie provinces. Maybe even independence sentiments.
For various reasons, I do a fair amount of time on google Earth. What’s been said about Canadian population is REALLY obvious there.
90% of them live within 100 miles of the US border. Seventy percent in the Ontario peninsula and a good bunch more up the St. Lawrence,
The rest of Canada is a desert, in the sense of nobody living there.
The exception is the grain belt running north from Montana and North Dakota to around Edmonton. Huge territory looks like Iowa but with fewer small towns.
That’s also where the oil is.
Guessing from the maps, large fields and few farm houses, perhaps more corporate farms than in Ontario.
Could be various physical issues making a difference in political views.
But the rest…going on forever and some little town near a river, serviced by an air strip. RCMP post. What is the point?
Perspective
https://x.com/yegwave/status/1917277590034796706?s=46&t=pOghkxSbQl2pg4CLby5nCA
Turtle
That was a masterpiece!
@Richard F Cook
Thank you kindly. I appreciate it. Any highlights for ya?
Suffice it to say I have my issues with Trump, including on this issue, but it is amazing how Bauxite could not even pretend to muster outrage at Trudeau or co and how they helped start or escalate this. Because apparently Trudeau outright insulting Trump and the American voting public in terms vastly more explicit than any of Trump’s so-called threats to Canadian sovereignty does not count when Bauxite does not want it to?
Miguel: thanks for the link to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s message to Carney and Ottawa. Maybe she has the grit and agility to replace Poilievre, who seems to have lost the plot after Trudeau’s resignation.
One point that doesn’t seem to have come up in the discussion around Trump’s role in all this is that his jibes at Trudeau–governor of our 51st state, maybe it’s time to annex Canada etc.–came after Trudeau reportedly said at their Mar-a-Lago meeting in November 2024 that the Canadian economy cannot survive without lopsided tariffs and U.S. subsidies:
“Trudeau told Trump he cannot levy the tariff because it would kill the Canadian economy completely. Trump replied – asking, so your country can’t survive unless it’s ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion? Trump then suggested to Trudeau that Canada become the 51st state, which caused the prime minister and others to laugh nervously, sources told Fox News.”
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-suggests-canada-become-51st-state-after-trudeau-said-tariff-would-kill-economy-sources
Here’s a contemporary Canadian account of the meeting:
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2124093/trumps-quip-about-canada-becoming-51st-state-was-a-joke-says-minister-who-was-there
Trudeau’s admission implied that Canada is in fact a dependency of the United States. Trump’s riposte was barbed and undiplomatic but logical. And apparently justified.
Canada is a great country with a rich and proud history. It’s not good for them or us that its inferiority complex vis-à-vis the United States–plus a really bad case of self-inflicted post-colonial guilt–continue to play decisive roles in its domestic politics. Here’s hoping Danielle Smith and like-minded Canadian politicians can offer an alternative way forward, one that results in a less-fraught and more-beneficial relationship with its southern neighbor.
So, with Canada as the fifty-first state, do the dems ever lose another election>
Canada is a great country with a rich and proud history.
==
If that were true, Francis would have be told to leave and never return after he slandered several generations of Catholic school teachers by endorsing the narratives of ethnic grifters.
If that were true, Francis would have be told to leave and never return after he slandered several generations of Catholic school teachers by endorsing the narratives of ethnic grifters.
==
Sorry–wrong address. You want the office just down the hall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc
Sorry–wrong address. You want the office just down the hall:
==
Why not define ‘proud history’.
Years ago, I saw a report that a particular issue was before the Canadian Supreme Court.
If a Canadian could not get necessary treatment in a timely fashion from the Canadian system, and it was urgent, the Canadian system would pay for it if done in the US.
Presume a lot of doctor’s reports and claims checking would be involved.
But I’ve not been able to find anything since.
True? Not true? Still up in the air?
Bauxite actually has a _little bit_ of a point.
Obviously the USA is not really planning to annex Canada, or Greenland for that matter, and I doubt if even many Canadians really believe it is. But at the same time, Presidents do need to be careful of what they say when foreign policy is involved. There is method to Trump’s madness, he’s keeping the Left and the GOPe in a constant state of confusion and outrage that leaves them unsure what to take seriously or where to focus or when to restrain themselves. But some of this comments have been ill-considered even so.
That Canada is _not_ part of the USA has been a point of pride for many Canadians for many years. I recall election campaigns many years ago where compaign ads were run on the premise of Canada being absorbed into the USA or in danger of such.
Ironically, the logic of the MAGA agenda actually works the other way. If Trump manages to fully secure the southern border, the inflow of illegals and other illegitimate entrants will necessily start coming through from the north. The logic of MAGA is to _emphasize_ the American/Canadian border.
That Canada is _not_ part of the USA has been a point of pride for many Canadians for many years.
==
The problem in the last five decades is that the public in Anglophone Canada lost track of any other point of pride. Hence their current reduced circumstances. Most of them haven’t got a clue.
@HC68
Agreed, but I think it is wasted by the intellectual dishonesty and blinkeredness.
Honestly I think he’s planning to annex Greenland; his attitude towards that has been a lot more serious and he has spent a lot more effort trying to pick that. But he wants to do so peacefully after negotiations with both Denmark and local autonomists/independentists. He has stated he would seize the island if need be during war like what we did in WWII (and I believe openly stating that was not helpful even if it is true) but I don’t think that would be how annexation would happen due to the circumstances there.
But agreed regarding Canada.
Agreed absolutely.
Indeed, and I can understand that. I do think limited rubbing of Trudeau’s nose into it over his insistence he could not negotiate on tariffs due to Canadian economic fragility was worth it, but then he should have tapered off.
They’ve already started coming through the North, albeit in lesser numbers. But agreed on teh whole.
“First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.” World war and civil war between good and evil. USA or PRC, choose Canada.
Is there a provision, legal or practical, for Canadian provinces to secede and set up on their own?
I recall Quebec trying something of the sort, long ago. DeGaulle visited and intoned “vive le Quebec libre” (my French is about as old as DeGaulle, so pardon) and things got lit up for a while.
But there are reports of various levels of dissatisfaction–at least–out west. And there’s the cowboy thing; see the Calgary Stampede with its hilarious chuckwagon races. Not Montrealish at all, although possibly somewhat Ottawaish.
And look at a map. There’s an awful lot of not very much between eastern Canada and, say, Winnipeg.
So if there’s an organized movement for secession, what does the US do?
Richard Aubrey: your French is spot-on. That’s exactly what DeGaulle proclaimed, from the balcony of Montreal City Hall in July 1967 (the year of Expo 67):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amApwFT49JQ (at the 7:45 mark)
Earlier in his remarks, DeGaulle said that the atmosphere he encountered throughout Quebec reminded him of the Liberation of Paris in 1944. You can bet that got some applause.
I was attending university in Montreal during the lead-up to the first Quebec independence referendum in 1980. It lost by a large margin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Quebec_referendum
The leader of the Parti Québécois at the time was René Lévesque. Lévesque had served in the U.S. Army during WWII–he refused to serve under the King–and spoke English like a G.I. A second referendum in 1995 was also defeated.
“So if there’s an organized movement for secession, what does the US do?” Dunno. Talk?
Huxley: yes, Cameron was a big wheel in psychology/psychiatry circles. My father was a clinical psychologist, but on the cognitive science side. He knew about Cameron’s work at the Allan Memorial and that of another Canadian psychologist with strong Montreal/McGill connections, Donald Hebb.
Family story. Dad got his Ph.D. in clinical psych right after the Korean War, when the U.S. government was funding research on brainwashing and psychological manipulation. One of his grad school classmates–a family friend–joined the CIA as a personality assessment specialist and had postings all over the world. He showed up unexpectedly–at least to me–at our house in western Massachusetts one afternoon in the late summer of 1974. I remember the year because I was at home, assembling a Heathkit stereo receiver I’d bought with cucumber-picking money. Dad and I were the only ones in the house–mom and my siblings were out somewhere. Dad’s friend stayed most of the afternoon and he and dad had a long quiet conversation over drinks and cigarettes (dad’s friend was a bourbon-drinking chain-smoker) in the living room. I remember Yuri Nosenko being discussed but was absorbed in my project and can’t remember what was said. I wish I could. Dad had a lot of issues with the Warren Commission Report, the multivolume version of which he checked out from a nearby public library. He thought there were a lot of loose ends that were deliberately obscured and not pursued, especially about Oswald’s USMC record, his time in the USSR, and his contacts with U.S. intelligence during his service in Japan and later.