• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 2 days ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2025

help-circle



  • Nice. A clairvoyant on the internet. Very original.

    Trump had made it very clear since before his inauguration that he would be targeting Mexico, Canada, and China in his crusade against fentanyl.

    Coincidentally, those three nations are also the US’ largest trading partners, where the only legal avenue for applying tarrifs within the framework of his own USMCA (the greatest trade deal, maybe ever!) is to declare a national emergency. ‘Tarrif’, after all, is his favourite word. Right after ‘make’, ‘that’ and ‘large’. He’s been obsessed with tarrifs since the 80s. Any excuse will do. And ‘fentanyl from Canada’ is the excuse that he burped up after a particularly greasy bucket of chicken.

    This trade policy by royal decree has been enabled by a national and bipartisan apathy to the abuse of legal loopholes and a general contempt toward foundational principles like the separation of powers. It’s all very obvious. We don’t have to guess at trumps motives or strategy here. He has rambled about it incoherently for years at this point. Subtlety is not one of his strong points.

    That’s not to mention the influence of the First Lady, Lord Ketamine himself.











  • As far as I understand, Canada and the EUs’ prospective counter tariffs are fairly surgical in that they will take aim disproportionately at red states.

    In terms of vacationing in the US. Your airlines, hotel chains, restaurant chains etc. all pay federal taxes. Therefore , spending money anywhere in the US, with few exceptions, is Canadian money in Trump’s war chest. With that in mind, a general boycott makes logical sense.

    The same goes for Costco Canada, Walmart Canada etc, of course. Multinationals all more or less repatriate their profits or franchise/licencing fees back to Mordor.







  • His son is already floating the idea of running in 2028, so the wild ride with this particular fascistic dynasty is far from over. It will probably continue into the next decade or so, at the very least. And if Canada maintains its sovereignty over the next four years, that does not mean we’re in the clear. Far from it.

    I’m 100% with you on ‘deterrents.’ I think it would reveal an extreme lack of competence, not to mention a dangerous lack of planning for our leaders not to consider seriously the idea of a robust deterrent at this point. I hope it’s already being floated.

    The fact that our leadership created the conditions for or allowed to worsen our over-reliance on a single trading partner doesn’t speak much to the levels of competence we should expect out of Ottawa.