upvote
Americans were our brothers. We had been partners for over a hundred years.
reply
I like this analogy - sparring with each other like toddlers do, before realizing that they have a lot in common as they age, like the English language, industrialization, the systemic abuse of natives, Big Oil, the World Wars and racism.

Now that they're older, they're sparring once again, just like siblings do over the parents' estate.

reply
I like your analogy, and want to add a sad addendum: parental illness and death is frequently the cause of sibling estrangement. Let’s hope this isn’t prolonged.
reply
This is terrible analogy. We're more like neighbours, and US is a bully. We made a decision not to have much a fence before we were friendly neighbours. We regret that decision, and are planting a hedge and reaching out to our other "neighbours" for support.

The whole neighbourhood thinks you're assholes and bullies, we're all scared. But that is bring us closer together as result, so there's some upside.

Racism? Oh man, visit any other country that is more homogenous.... lol. Everything is relative.

reply
Siblings can also be bullies.

Canadian and American racism is documented in specific events, unlike in other countries. I'd be hard pressed to find specific racism-driven events in Poland or Czechia, even though they top the racist charts.

I'm not American so your second point is completely moot.

reply
Sir, Nawrocki is only the president because of racist pressures. I don't even hate him but you cannot argue that he would be elected if it weren't for fear of foreigners.
reply
Because Trump is a new, and (hopefully!) a one time phenomenon.

He is unique in that he seems to have absolute control over the Republican base which makes all internal party checks fail. The rest is provided by a hyper polarized media landscape and a conservative supreme court majority that seems to be open to radical upheavals. The combination of all three has rendered the constitutional safe guards ineffective. In other words, we seem to have run into an edge case in the US constitution.

The supreme court won't change materially in the near future and likely the polarization will continue, but it's hard to image someone in the future with such an absolute grip on either party. So, hopefully a soft restart of the system in 2028 will be the last of this edge case for a while. That's the hope, anyway!

The two countries have far more in common shared interests than differences, so odds are things will drift back to normal in the future.

reply
> Because Trump is a new, and (hopefully!) a one time phenomenon.

Trump is already, on his own, a two-time phenomenon. Leaving aside broader cultural issues and patterns, "one-time only" has been clearly incorrect for a while.

reply
Trump did not rise to power in isolation. He has not remained in isolation while in power. Voter support for Trump is still reasonably strong, and Trump and his supporters have ensured that the mechanisms of Government are packed with loyalists.

America chose this. America continues to tolerate this. America enabled this.

This isn't something that Trump can be scapegoated for. This is what many Americans wanted, or at the very least, it is what many Americans are willing to tolerate.

reply
We have lots of issues with Canadian protectionism, around $46 billion of them.

We also take issue with them cozying up to the ChiComms.

reply
The trade deficit with Canada is because Americans are buying Canadian products.

Enough Canadians (seriously, the vast majority) live close enough to the border that they could make a weekly trip to the USA and purchase American dairy and other American goods. In fact, prior to the tariffs many Canadians did make regular shopping trips across the border.

So let's be clear: we were buying your products to the extent we wanted to, already.

reply
As someone unfamiliar with the US-Canada trade relationship, it would be helpful if you developed this argument instead of stating it as a fact. I'm not well-placed to know whether your belief that Canada has bilked the US out of 46 billion dollars is well-founded or not.
reply
It represents the trade deficit the USA has with Canada. To believe that this is a problem as a result of Canada's nefarious actions is to believe that Canada is preventing its citizens from purchasing American product.

Which is a common refrain with respect to our supply management system for dairy; but to believe this you have to ignore that the USA has _never once_ managed to export enough dairy products to Canada to meet or exceed the import quotas set by the supply management regime.

The truth is that Canadians simply don't seem all that interested in purchasing American dairy products.

reply
Erm, Apple gear, cheap stuff, and much of the generic drug market comes from those ChiComs. Or is it ok if the US does it?
reply
> We also take issue with them cozying up to the ChiComms.

does everything possible to spite the Canadian economy. then has the gall to be surprised that Canada would cozy up to people who don't shit on them

who would have guessed?

reply
> Because Trump is a new, and (hopefully!) a one time phenomenon.

unless the US extinguishes all of its billionaires and somehow convinces 1/3 to 1/2 of their population to not vote against their own interests it'll happen again

reply
Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Trump - not a one time phenomenon, more of a natural progression.
reply
> Because Trump is a new, and (hopefully!) a one time phenomenon.

How have you forgotten bush so quickly? Why would bipartisan support of this invasion of Iraq ameliorate an obvious crime against humanity?

Europe clearly has its own bigotries to deal with before it is trustworthy. And islamophobia is only the start

reply
deleted
reply
> He is unique in that he seems to have absolute control over the Republican base which makes all internal party checks fail. The rest is provided by a hyper polarized media landscape and a conservative supreme court majority that seems to be open to radical upheavals. The combination of all three has rendered the constitutional safe guards ineffective. In other words, we seem to have run into an edge case in the US constitution.

The US constitution has absolutely nothing at all to say about political parties or the particular state of the media landscape, or for that matter the partisan alignment of justices of the supreme court. It's incoherent to suggest that there are "constitutional safe guards" that should have prevented the election of a president (or the exercise of power by that president), who is supported by about one-half of a very polarized electorate and opposed by a separate one-half. Everything about the Trump presidency is as constitutional as every previous US presidency, including the phenomenon of opponents of the president trying to claim that specific things they do are or should be unconstitutional.

reply
Why trust anyone? Really what stops a Trump from getting elected anywhere else? The citizens seem smarter or less bigoted? Are you sure that will always be the case given the agitprop in every form of media and internet communication in every language on earth?
reply
There have been many elections in many political entities where a politician got elected because one group of citizens really liked that politician; and another group of citizens thought that politician was extremely, historically bad. This is inherent to mass democracy itself in any polity where there are real and deep-seated differences between different groups of the electorate. "A Trump" - in the sense of a politician whose opponents describe in apocalyptic terms and consider that politician's supporters to be stupid and bigoted - gets elected all the time in all sorts of places.
reply
> Why trust anyone?

Because comparative advantage.

reply
True. But we seem like the least trustworthy people on earth at the moment. After israel, anyway.

Trump has nothing to do with it.

reply
> Trump has nothing to do with it.

Genuinely, what makes the US untrustworthy if not Trump? I’m curious what I may be missing.

reply
Remember the guy who promised he'd shut down Guantanamo? Or the guy who made up some weapons so he could invade Irak? Or the guy who ordered Northstream to be blown up?
reply
> Genuinely, what makes the US untrustworthy if not Trump?

We invaded Korea, and then Vietnam, and a few hundred other interventions that don't seem to be sanctioned by the international community. All because of a hardon for ideology that doesn't seem to actually reflect the interests of the people who live here.

reply
Most of those were sanctioned by the international community. Look at the participants.
reply
We had the international community on a leash after WWII. This means nothing.
reply
Leash or not, there was international support as a fact.
reply
Great. I'm happy you're willing to recognize our fucking empire for what it is
reply
> We invaded Korea

what a terrible bad faith arguemnt

N Korea invaded the south and the UN voted to create a joint force in there to defend it.

reply
Israel seems trustworthy in the sense that their priorities and aims are abundantly clear to everyone. People are pissed about Israel for Iran right now, but, I mean, there is a reason why they are attacking Iran right now and not Egypt or Turkey. You go about and poke the bear like Iran has done for decades with Israel, you get these outcomes. Egypt tried to poke the bear but that was decades ago and they've since learned there is nothing to gain there.
reply
Nobody is buying this narrative of Israel being provoked, because the reaction to the provocation, if there ever was one, is completely disproportional.

Israel had settlements in Palestine way before the conflict outbreak, and nothing explains the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure on Lebanon but for Israel just going supernova, like Germany and Japan back then.

reply
Hey that's up to you. I will never vote for a person who supports Israel. Our parents may have been retarded but we don't have to be. I just see a state devoted to slaughtering as many people as they can. Iran looks like a saint compared to them.
reply
I'm not supportive of them either. I just don't consider them untrustworthy though. Everything they do is exactly what they've always done since that state was formed. Easily the most predictable nation on earth, Israel. Easy way to get Israel off your back though? Stop funding terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah that inevitably do something stupid to provoke the Israelis into armed conflict. It is really that simple.
reply
True. Israel begins, Israel assassinates and complains about being targeted by terrorism. Israel begins the loop again. What is more reliable than Israel?

Iran would be a better ally. China would be a better ally. Fucking Russia would be a better ally. Why did we decide to die on the hills of (loosely translated, I guess) mageddo?

But instead our state leans into exterminating people because our PR team was inspired by Goebbels and was trained to hate muslims

reply
It is like a modern day state of Prussia. A beachhead and airstrip in the middle east. Weapons manufacturing. Rocket science. A cyber security firm. An intelligence agency. Some of the best in the world at these things. All wrapped up into one. This is why nations like to ally with Israel.

But again, if you don't want problems with Israel don't make problems with Israel. Their populace is militarized like few other and seemingly with a lot of political cohesion. Egypt has learned not to poke the bear. So has Jordan.

reply