NPR

Niegs wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:06 pm The foundation that uses short dramatizations to promote Canadian history today reposted this old one which, I think, depicts the first time forces from the south (American colonial gov) tried to overthrow lands to the north (New France colony).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Quebec_(1690)

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:55 pm Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:55 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:55 pm Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:55 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:55 pm Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:55 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:55 pm Ronald Reagan:

*“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.”*

Ironically, it was Reagan who set a lot of this in motion.

Interesting. When did Reagan say that and who was he referring to? We're there people to the right of him in the GOP in the 80s?

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:19 pm This time in history does have some approximation to late 19th and early 20th century Mexico.

During the Porfiriato Mexico underwent a period of rapid industrialisation and modernisation but it's new found wealth went primarily into the hands of foreign investors and an microscopically small set of wealthy Mexicans. The average Mexican did not benefit at all. Hence the Mexican revolution.

Similarly, globalisation has benefitted a certain class of people but has also created a scenario where many people (or rather, their kids) are relatively worse off than they were in say, 1990. This whole America first, MAGA culture is a response to that and I think it is going to spawn a lot of copycats as politicians are under pressure to deliver for their constituents and compatriots rather than for people living thousands of miles away. Basically localism.

Not saying I agree with the MAGA movement but I think I grasp why it has gained traction.

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Niegs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 6:52 pm Hopefully there's a bunch of Jack Ryans in the system to do the right thing... I guess the difference here is that the fictional president and his yes-men were doing this underhandedly rather in front of the public / press.

In a message that circulated widely among bureau personnel, an FBI agent summarized what happened as: “Bottom line — DOJ came over and wanted to fire a bunch of J6 agents. Driscoll is an absolute stud. Held his ground and told WH proxy, DOJ, to F--- Off.”

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment. A senior FBI official disputed the accounts of the current and former officials saying, “It’s not true.”

A former FBI official who knows Driscoll well said, “He pushed back hard.”

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

Hugo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:00 am

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

The Trump admin have been complaining about the border not being secure. The complaints are with specific regard to drugs going over. It doesn't seem like a good faith complaint because of course there is no way that a border that size (largest in the world?) can be secure to the extent that NO drugs come across at all. Its just not a realistic outcome.

Ofc "war on drugs" rhetoric has always featured heavily in the GOP playbook.

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:35 am
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment. A senior FBI official disputed the accounts of the current and former officials saying, “It’s not true.”

A former FBI official who knows Driscoll well said, “He pushed back hard.”

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

Yeeb wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 8:11 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:35 am

Yeeb wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 8:11 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

They aren't trying to fix anything that's the point, these are all just jumped up excuses to put in place tariffs to create friction. All they want to do is to create chaos and mayhem and break down what they regard as the deep state and the establishment! The creation and forthcoming 'battles' against their neighbors and allies is just to create a smokescreen for them to create anger and chaos amongst the population - these bad folk over there are putting your prices up! They see this as a necessary step towards creating the new 'Information Age'. They are trying to completely break the US state laws, structures and mechanisms and make the final step to where private companies provide services, but only those that people are prepared to pay for and are profitable, and the country is run by a group of oligarchs who hide their fortunes away using digital currencies and dont pay taxes to anyone. As a Rothschild banker said, 'The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.'

TB63 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:59 pm Ouch...

Yeeb wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 8:11 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I think he’s lumped those together at the start purely as they fall under the drugs pretext. Eu clearly in next wave but that excuse won’t work so he’s just used their don’t buy from us speil.
And as I had hoped and semi predicted with that madman , UK plc is off the hook for now, which could be a side benefit of Brexit but more likely because we have the surplus with them not other way around , and he’s got bigger fish to fry. Only a fool would be complacent, but is Starmer that fool ?

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

Hugo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:55 pm
Presumably they will give Canada a similar grave period??? Unless he simply has it in for Trudeau.

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:39 pm

Hugo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:55 pm
Presumably they will give Canada a similar grave period??? Unless he simply has it in for Trudeau.

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:46 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

Hugo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:28 pm The thing I don't fully get about the tariffs is why Trump has imposed them on Canada and Mexico simultaneously.

Strategically it would seem to make a lot more sense to impose them on Mexico first (to make an example) and then give Canada (and other countries) a deadline by which they will have them imposed and the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to avoid them.

Vance says today in a tweet that its because the US has asked Canada nicely about securing the border and that got them nowhere but they've only been in power less than a month. That's not what I would consider a reasonable timeline.

Incredibly strange to alienate allies when a more diplomatic approach would surely yield results. I don't get it. ???

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

Hugo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:38 pm

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:46 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

Also, I was thinking that the border (quite obviously) is a dual responsibility so it's pretty dishonest to frame it as an exclusively Canadian problem. Also, my guess is that a shit ton of drugs and guns and other bad stuff is transported INTO Canada from the US - it's not as if it's a one way street.

The whole angle seems to be based on a pretty dishonest premise IMHO.

Hugo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:38 pm

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:46 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:49 am

I'm sorry but what's going on with the border with Canada?

There are some legitimate border and port issues, but it seems kind of dumb to only focus on the fentanyl issue when these are more apparent and potentially dangerous issues if terrorists could walk across the border.




I can say ... ahem, with a bit of knowledge ... that there's a big effort to hire more border officers that began last year. And it seems they are focused on beefing up remote crossings / ports of entry.

Also, I was thinking that the border (quite obviously) is a dual responsibility so it's pretty dishonest to frame it as an exclusively Canadian problem. Also, my guess is that a shit ton of drugs and guns and other bad stuff is transported INTO Canada from the US - it's not as if it's a one way street.

The whole angle seems to be based on a pretty dishonest premise IMHO.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:35 am Canada drug “issue” is prescription drugs being cheaper up North. Someone in USA drug firm lobby is whispering in Trump’s ear.

yermum wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:51 am Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 11:07 am

yermum wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:51 am Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 11:16 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 11:07 am

yermum wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:51 am Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

And now we have laws being pushed to make it illegal for public officials to vote against the policies he wants. He's trying to use executive orders to force through new laws that he shouldn't have the power to do himself.

Democracy has to have checks and balances to prevent itself from changing from a democracy to something else. Removing those checks and balances is what people trying to take over do, and it's what Trumps seems to be doing.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 11:07 am

yermum wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:51 am Look at all these tarrifs !

Meanwhile musk goes into federal agencies with his bunch of incel acolytes and gets root access to the payment systems.

It may seem like tin foil stuff. It looks like a technocratic coup to me.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-a ... nt-system/

America as a democracy is done.

Can’t see how this threatens democracy - Trump won the election and has the right therefore to send his cronies in to run the government. Pretty much the purpose of voting to change a nation’s leader

Democratic lawmakers have protested the moves, saying Trump lacks constitutional authority to shut down USAID without congressional approval and decrying Musk’s accessing sensitive government-held information through his Trump-sanctioned inspections of federal government agencies and programs.