• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Greenland, Canada, Panama & Trumps Ambitions For Them --(CLOSED)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Winnitude said:
And make no mistake - there are some pretty good parallels with where the US is going, especially in terms of one Elon Musk, and Russia from the 1990s to today. I would not say that Russia had a strong state apparatus early in this process nor would I say the same thing about Weimar Germany.
Click to expand...
...which is why I added "in its present state". The US would have to fundamentally change in order for such conquest to become possible - but that's not to say it won't change in the manner described.

As for Russia and Germany - the one thing they had going for them was their longstanding experience with militaristic authoritarian rule. Of Prussia (Germany's ancestor state) it was famously said: "It wasn't a country that possessed an army - it was an army that possessed a country." The US has no such experience - you could even argue that the Founding Fathers had gone out of their way to prevent that from happening.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
No qualms about how our ally is treating us?
Click to expand...
In what way is this about how Canada is treating the US? They've recently decided to shift to the agricultural tariffs THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE DEAL DONALD TRUMP MADE HIMSELF AND COULD BE NEGOTIATED WITHOUT THIS CLUSTERTRUCK as reasoning now that the other reason (fentanyl) they gave was addressed by Canada with a multi-billion border plan + is so obviously BS and was never a real problem (turns out, fentanyl FROM the US in Canada is a bigger one... figures, lol). So they had to move the goalposts since they don't want the trade war to end, it's part of a broader play.
They've openly stated there is no concession they are looking for and nothing Canada can do but be annexed to avoid it. Are you really going to fall for the casus belli?
If the goalposts keep moving, odds are, they were never the real goalposts. THAT is the misdirection for the public, to rile up his base because he assumes they won't question it or notice. The only thing he has been consistent (and as well held private meetings on etc) on is annexation (though statehood is unlikely to be the real plan).
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
No qualms about how our ally is treating us?
Click to expand...
I'd say fairly & Canada is following the trade agreements put in place by Trump himself his first term.

Crazy how conveniently people either forget or not mention the current trade agreements we have with Canada where created by Trump from his last term for crying out loud. They have followed it and have always been a fair allies.

All he is doing is ruining one of our most important military and economic allies given their geography. Shameful. :(
 
Last edited:
Btw., those 250% agricultural tariffs Trump is complaining about - they only kick in after a certain exports threshold is reached, and US exports to Canada aren't anywhere near that threshold. Nobody actually pays those tariffs. Not that Trump will tell you, of course.

As noted by @Winnitude, the whole fentanyl thing is such an obvious load of bull I won't deign to discuss it.
 
Socom7 said:
Btw., those 250% agricultural tariffs Trump is complaining about - they only kick in after a certain exports threshold is reached, and US exports to Canada aren't anywhere near that threshold. Nobody actually pays those tariffs. As noted by @Winnitude, the whole fentanyl thing is such an obvious load of bull I won't deign to discuss it.
Click to expand...
Yup never reached that threshold because Canada follows the trade agreements Trump put in place his first term. Those tarrif percents have NEVER been paid. Because Canada is a good economic partner.

One can argue Canada can do more militarily, but economicly? No, they have been fair. It's out right absurd to go after Canada in this way over such ludacris reasons let alone attack them economicly for aforementioned ludacris reasons given for them.

Trump and by extention many in the GOP at least should try and make it somewhat legitimate by attacking their military spending and say that's why your doing these things to Canada. Instead of the other BS reasons given by Trump administration, then doubling down on the absurd reasons.
 
Last edited:
OReid said:
Lot of opinions there, not one source for any of it.
Do you all feel better?
Click to expand...
The fact Trump made the current trade agreements we have with Canada, the fact we NEVER paid 250% tarrifs as Canada has followed its quotas by said trade agreements Trump put in place his first term is upsetting? Why?
 
OReid said:
Lot of opinions there, not one source for any of it.
Do you all feel better?
Click to expand...
I could say the exact same thing about every claim you've made in this thread. The only time you sourced anything it was that Canada may theoretically be useful for moving fentanyl because it has strong trade relationships lmao.
If you, right now, will make a commitment to reading the sources and actually addressing the information, then I will go source everything here for you.
If not, this is for nothing but to terminate thought on the matter because you have no actual argument you can make against the substance of what was said on its merits. "Source? Source? Source?" nonsense in mid-discussion is the biggest thought-terminating cliche online these days.
But if you will actually read and respond in good faith, then I will happily source everything I've said here for you + even DarkNoon and Socom's comments about the tariffs + the fact that the existing trade deal Canada has been 100% following was hashed out by Trump if even that recent of history is forgotten to you.
 
Socom7 said:
You mean that whole "global warming" thing that the MAGA folks claim is just a leftist conspiracy? 😅
Click to expand...
I think it's legitimate although I don't solely believe it is the cause of humans but rather a blend between natural and artificial causes.

I think it is a real issue that has been used in some cases left and right to push agendas.
 
JPod said:
I think it's legitimate although I don't solely believe it is the cause of humans but rather a blend between natural and artificial causes.

I think it is a real issue that has been used in some cases left and right to push agendas.
Click to expand...
Although it does present an issue: given the current admin's stance on it is broadly that it's basically a myth and we should do nothing about it, do you believe they are lying, or stupid? Because it can only be one or the other if you believe in it yourself; they either know but are lying for personal gain at the expense of billions, or they're unable to understand the issue. For someone who doesn't believe in it, well then it's all squared up I guess.
 
Winnitude said:
Although it does present an issue: given the current admin's stance on it is broadly that it's basically a myth and we should do nothing about it, do you believe they are lying, or stupid? Because it can only be one or the other if you believe in it yourself; they either know but are lying for personal gain at the expense of billions, or they're unable to understand the issue. For someone who doesn't believe in it, well then it's all squared up I guess.
Click to expand...
Well I think there are a few reasons why the that might be the case.
1) to not incite panic.
2) they don't believe a crisis can be avoided
3) appealing to the base
4) profit, maybe?

Left or Right I think that although the rhetoric is different (appealing to different voters) they have the same belief that the crisis is unavoidable. While the left is more outspoken on saving the environment (virtue signaling to their base) the changes made by such governments are lackluster in actually fixing the problem, this is because (in my opinion) they know good and well the problem can't be solved (well there is one solution, to kill or otherwise reduce the global population thus reducing consumption of co2 emitting fuels en masse). The right on the other hand completely dismiss or otherwise downplay the fact it even exists (playing to their base). Both parties do what they do to get themselves elected and to satisfy the public.

And rich people love money above all else so I imagine they are profiting somehow, someway regardless of political affiliation.
 
Winnitude said:
In what way is this about how Canada is treating the US? They've recently decided to shift to the agricultural tariffs THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE DEAL
Click to expand...
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

And protectionist tariffs by Canada didn't pop up just last week. This has been an ongoing issue.
 
You all will think I'm crazy, but I firmly believe we have less than 60 years left before anything south of the great lakes succumbs to desertification, with the air being lethally hot at the coasts.

Trump also realizes this, its why the annexation of Greenland & Canada would serve as a survival stragety. The glaciers will melt, and we won't have ice at the North Pole anymore. An alliance wirh Russia, and an occupation of Greenland, Canada, Panama, will allow firm control of world trade routes. it is why I also believe Ukraine was invaded, partially for its farmland, which will better survive climate change effects like Canada.

I also believe the hard push for deportation and arrests of dissidents, hard removal of any DEI programs is a fasicistic survival mechanism to reduce down the population of those you don't consider 'American'.

"Half of us will starve to death by 2060, might as well make it them starving, not us"

Less mouthes to feed. Different way to approach it.

One may consider a noble act from a leader to take such first safety moves for his subjects, but I would argue, damn, why didn't we fix excessive climate damage sooner and avoid this bloodshed?

In response to Jpod, yes, it was all mostly virtue signalning. We could have fixed it 25 years ago if we even tried. Now.. it is far too late. People will die.

I fear the suffering other nations will see during a heat wave with wet bulb temperatures.
Wet bulb excerpt, wikipedia:
Given the body's vital requirement to maintain a core temperature of approximately 37°C, a sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, semi-nude in the shade and next to a fan; at this temperature human bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it.<a href="Wet-bulb temperature - Wikipedia"><span></span></a>
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPod
  • Love
Reactions: JPod
DEFCON Warning System said:
Looks like Canada backed down from its 25% surcharge after the US threatened them with a 50% tax.


(I just love how that headline was written!)

www.cbsnews.com

Trump backs off doubling Canadian steel and aluminum tariffs after Ontario suspends electricity surcharge

There has been quite a bit of tariff whiplash on Tuesday between the U.S. and Canada.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
This is a misleading take; Ford suspended the energy tariffs as an olive branch to begin negotiations, a show of good faith to get the US to come to the table and negotiate - "you come talk to us in good faith and we'll pause the energy tariffs" - not the other way around.
1741747570282.png
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

And protectionist tariffs by Canada didn't pop up just last week. This has been an ongoing issue.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about the 250%, we aren't. Nobody has paid that. It only kicks in after a threshold that has never been hit (because we are good trading partners). If he is so gung ho about the theoretical possibility that it could kick in if we totally changed our trade policy, then he could've come to the table to renegotiate (or not signed it the first time lol but w/e), instead, he chose to go straight for these reckless actions.

Can you be specific about exactly what Canada is doing to mistreat the US and why it justifies this?

Agriculture tariffs certainly do not and as you said are not new and have never been a justification for anything like this meanwhile the economic alliance being destroyed over them benefitted both of us massively regardless, fentanyl issue never existed and they simply pivoted off to invent something new, the theoretical 250% tariffs that he agreed to in the deal that aren't actually in effect and that have never been paid.
If you guys wanted to 1:1 tariff your own agriculture, under the same conditions, that would be fair. Hell, if this was ACTUALLY about dropping the tariffs, that would be understandable, but he keeps changing the reason and as he has openly said will not accept any concession besides giving up our sovereignty.

Though again when one reason doesn't pan out he just moves on and invents one and his base moves with him and somehow forgets the last lie to accept the new one. So it's not even really worth dignifying by countering the agriculture tariff position, as we all know it's not actually the position driving these actions anyway.

I think the other people straight up admitting that they think taking Canada is just a good idea are at least seeing through the nonsense even if I disagree with them.
 
Last edited:
Winnitude said:
I pointed out that this is entirely based on lies and all you sent me is reasons why in theory Canada could be a source of fentanyl, including simply the fact that it has good trade relationships.
When they keep changing the reason, how can you not see how these are not the reason? First it's fentanyl, then it's agriculture tariffs, and the whole time they're openly stating that there is nothing Canada can do to avoid it (his words not mine) and that the only concession Canada could make would be to become the 51st state (his words not mine).
If there was something Canada could do to avoid it, the massive border plan that Canada put in place which is already working (and funnily proving most of the fentanyl flow is from the US up into Canada and not the other way around), would have. The goalposts keep moving because there are no goalposts. This is an act of aggression and very little else.
Unfortunately, I think here these moving goalposts are simply games he's playing to justify things for the public.
Click to expand...
No I sent you Canadian and international news sources highlighting why it is a problem. You sent personal opinions
 
OReid said:
No I sent you Canadian and international news sources highlighting why it is a problem. You sent personal opinions
Click to expand...
You sent 2 reports highlighting why it could be a problem, primarily due to things that would make it theoretically useful such as simply having good trade relationships, alongside your personal opinion that it is a problem.
These are different things.
If you'll commit to reading the sources and responding in good-faith without this kind of dancing around the issue and playing rhetorical games instead of simply going idea vs idea on a rational level analyzing each of our positions on their merits, then I'll spend the time to find and send them for you.
If you won't, then your request is simply a thought terminating cliche with no substance behind it.

It's interesting that you chose not to in your response here, but then continued to harp on about the sources, after reading that you can ask for them and choosing not to. Doesn't seem to be anything good-faith about that when it comes to discussing the actual issue involved. Feels like you'd either ask for them and comment on them or not ask for them and move on, but not asking for them and then commenting on them once you're not getting what you chose not to ask for when prompted is weird.

Also, FYI if you didn't realize - being a Canadian source doesn't actually make it much more credible than being an International one. It's about the information and the facts, not the person saying it. Any system of reasoning which weighs the person themselves above the objective validity of facts involved is invalid.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom