News   Apr 26, 2024
 93     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 323     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 515     0 

Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

That's utterly false - considering the sheer range and volume of views posted online, I'd say social media encouraged instead of prevented anyone from expressing said views. In previous times, individuals holding such views would get little to no press, be ostracized by the broader community and society at large to a far greater extent than they do now (and have little to no avenues like GoFundMe or Youtube to raise funds, much less reach other audiences).



Not quite true - among the European grear powers, perhaps:

Wars-Long-Run-military-civilian-fatalities-from-Brecke.png

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

But of course, there is more to history than the European powers.

AoD

The War of 1812, is considered by "Historians in the United States and Canada (who) see it as a war in its own right, while Europeans often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars." From link.
 
I would just like to acknowledge the complete falsehood of my absolute statement after reviewing my own link (and the same provided by AoD). It appears that the incidence of armed conflict is in fact not at its lowest ever.

I wish I could remember a similar chart I once read in The Economist which did show it to be at its lowest ever.

The thing is - what should a term like "very few armed conflict" supposed to imply anyways - when you have a parallel indicator of intensity by the number of deaths/population.

AoD
 
The thing is - what should a term like "very few armed conflict" supposed to imply anyways - when you have a parallel indicator of intensity by the number of deaths/population.

AoD

I clearly said "incidence of armed conflict", which is simply the number of armed conflicts, regardless of intensity or death toll.

Yeah, it's not wrong to say that we are at the least violent stage in terms of armed conflict in centuries, if not ever. I still think that. I just wanted to acknowledge that I made an absolute statement that was in fact incorrect.
 
AlvinofDiaspar, I focused on the underlying issues because we can wax on about how terrible Trump the man is (I fully agree); however, he is in power and has broad support because ordinary Americans and people generally in the Republican Party have sympathy for many of the general policy directions he is taking.

It is actually a strategic trap in my opinion to focus on the man rather than the man as a symbol of popular grievance. Take the current headlines about treatment of economic migrants. Clearly, there are gross violations of human decency taking place; however, broadly speaking in the United States and throughout the world there are grave concerns about how governments are approaching the pressures of economic migration and the integrity of national borders.

I'm fully supportive of our Canadian immigration policy, a migrant to Canada myself, and a visible minority; however, the kind and level of immigration and the strength or porosity of a national border are legitimate political issues up for debate internally within any given country. The international community and external observers have an interest in the welfare and treatment of our fellow humans but I feel the immigration policy and border policies of another country are none of our business.
 
So, from the US side, I'm seeing awareness that many Canadians are boycotting their products in response to the trade war, for example as covered by this NPR article. Do you guys think that many Canadians are really this unified and strongly choosing to "buy Canadian"?

"Across Canada, people are increasingly shocked and angry about the way the country is being treated by the Trump administration. They've watched as the U.S. has slapped steep tariffs on Canadian products, listened to President Trump harangue Trudeau and discovered the U.S. now considers their country a national security threat."

...

"In the meantime, he believes Canadians will continue to voice their disapproval with the Trump administration through the #BuyCanadian movement. He predicts that will extend to the tourism industry as well. Three of his neighbors who spend time in Florida every year are now looking for new vacation spots outside the U.S."


https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/6235...-and-are-hitting-back-by-boycotting-u-s-goods
 
Last edited:
I know quite a few people who are actively avoiding buying US. At the grocery store, for example, I am paying more attention than usual to country of origin and not buying American. No more California wine for my gang either.
 
I'm alarmed at the naivete of these 'buy-Canadian' sentiments. We better wake up fast. The US is serious about putting themselves first for a change, like every other country. 20% of our economy depends on US exports, 2% of theirs on Cda exports. We better get our s*** in order fast. That means getting ready to compete, lower business taxes, throw those Quebec dairy farmers under the bus and telling aboriginal people that we cant continue to subsidize their lifestyles if our economy is imploding (building pipelines). There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada that would not survive a 6-month trade war. And Ontario would get hit hardest and fastest (esp Supertalls :)
 
I'm alarmed at the naivete of these 'buy-Canadian' sentiments. We better wake up fast. The US is serious about putting themselves first for a change, like every other country. 20% of our economy depends on US exports, 2% of theirs on Cda exports. We better get our s*** in order fast. That means getting ready to compete, lower business taxes, throw those Quebec dairy farmers under the bus and telling aboriginal people that we cant continue to subsidize their lifestyles if our economy is imploding (building pipelines). There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada that would not survive a 6-month trade war. And Ontario would get hit hardest and fastest (esp Supertalls :)

The US is fighting a trade war not just with Canada though, but with other countries which they also depend on.

So both the US and Canada (the US fighting the trade war with multiple countries of which Canada is just one, and Canada, which is responding primarily to the US in the trade war) are losing in the trade war in that regard.
 
I'm alarmed at the naivete of these 'buy-Canadian' sentiments. We better wake up fast. The US is serious about putting themselves first for a change, like every other country. 20% of our economy depends on US exports, 2% of theirs on Cda exports. We better get our s*** in order fast. That means getting ready to compete, lower business taxes, throw those Quebec dairy farmers under the bus and telling aboriginal people that we cant continue to subsidize their lifestyles if our economy is imploding (building pipelines). There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada that would not survive a 6-month trade war. And Ontario would get hit hardest and fastest (esp Supertalls :)

Regarding supply management (those pesky "Quebec dairy farmers", oh, and Ontario ones too), I would consider agreeing to ending it iff ('if and only if) the US ended government subsidies to their dairy industry, which one study pegged at $22 billion in 2015. I read somewhere that if their farmers lost their government subsidies, their milk would cost roughly the same as ours. Of course, like all other agreements with the US, powerful industry and political lobbies would start breaking it the day after an agreement was signed - they'd call it rural road adjacent property grants or something. Oh, and opened up their barrier-free import market. Apparently they allow roughly 2% dairy-related imports vs. our roughly 6% (no, I don't know how that is calculated).

it is interesting that a significant number of Wisconsin dairy farmers favour a supply management system.
 
Last edited:
I'm alarmed at the naivete of these 'buy-Canadian' sentiments. We better wake up fast. The US is serious about putting themselves first for a change, like every other country. 20% of our economy depends on US exports, 2% of theirs on Cda exports. We better get our s*** in order fast. That means getting ready to compete, lower business taxes, throw those Quebec dairy farmers under the bus and telling aboriginal people that we cant continue to subsidize their lifestyles if our economy is imploding (building pipelines). There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada that would not survive a 6-month trade war. And Ontario would get hit hardest and fastest (esp Supertalls :)

You need to cool it on the racially charged rhetoric on this board. I’m seeing it in a number of your posts.
 
I'm alarmed at the naivete of these 'buy-Canadian' sentiments. We better wake up fast. The US is serious about putting themselves first for a change, like every other country. 20% of our economy depends on US exports, 2% of theirs on Cda exports. We better get our s*** in order fast. That means getting ready to compete, lower business taxes, throw those Quebec dairy farmers under the bus and telling aboriginal people that we cant continue to subsidize their lifestyles if our economy is imploding (building pipelines). There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada that would not survive a 6-month trade war. And Ontario would get hit hardest and fastest (esp Supertalls :)
Can't argue with anything you have written.
By "we", I assume you mean the Canadian public, because I think the trade dispute that we" (the government) have gotten into is going exactly according to the Liberal plan.
 
Where in hell is Julia Sugarbaker when you need her?


If you are unfamiliar with the show Designing Women, it was produced by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason in the 90s. Back when there were still Democrats in the south.:(

Dixie Carter - the actress who played Julia Sugarbaker - was a Republican, but in interviews she explained she agreed with the views being expressed in the show’s scripts.
 
Last edited:
Julia Sugarbaker - was a Republican, but in interviews she explained she agreed with the views being expressed in the show’s scripts.
I've never understood party allegiance. Just because you vote Republican. that doesn't make you one. Though I suppose one could actually join the party.
 

Back
Top