U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)

[suffolkowner]

While there’s talk of an economic ‘union’ between Canada and the U.S., we have 12% of their population. That would not be a ‘union’, it would be an absorbption we would not be creating a shared currency; we would be adopting the U.S. dollar. We would not be coequal partners in setting monetary policy. We would be setting Canada up to be steamrolled in all decision making. We would be ceding considerable real and perceived sovereignty to a nation that’s increasingly isolationist and erratic, and which definitely has a covetous eye for a lot of our resource wealth.

There is strain in the current Canada-US relationship, but it’s not broken. We can negotiate individual treaties and agreements where needed.

It surprises me to see a lot of the people who condemn PMJT for calling us a ‘post-national state’ lining up to advocate for less Canadian sovereignty and less independence from the U.S.

We can work to improve CAN-US relations by working on addressing real security concerns, while also firmly saying that we are and will remain an independent Canada.

If Canadians want to be American, they can move to America… If they have anything to offer that the U.S. immigration system wants.

there's no being half pregnant here

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While there’s talk of an economic ‘union’ between Canada and the U.S., we have 12% of their population. That would not be a ‘union’, it would be an absorbption we would not be creating a shared currency; we would be adopting the U.S. dollar. We would not be coequal partners in setting monetary policy. We would be setting Canada up to be steamrolled in all decision making. We would be ceding considerable real and perceived sovereignty to a nation that’s increasingly isolationist and erratic, and which definitely has a covetous eye for a lot of our resource wealth.

There is strain in the current Canada-US relationship, but it’s not broken. We can negotiate individual treaties and agreements where needed.

It surprises me to see a lot of the people who condemn PMJT for calling us a ‘post-national state’ lining up to advocate for less Canadian sovereignty and less independence from the U.S.

We can work to improve CAN-US relations by working on addressing real security concerns, while also firmly saying that we are and will remain an independent Canada.

If Canadians want to be American, they can move to America… If they have anything to offer that the U.S. immigration system wants.

Not advocating for it, but from a pure economic viewpoint it would be logical. But human interactions never follow a logical pathway.

 

[JLB50]

Then let them move to the US and see how good it is there before they sell out.

I am reminded of my father-in-law who fought for Canada during WW2 and was severely injured. Along with all the others who served, many of whom were injured or died, they wanted Canada to be the great place it became. My father-in-law would not just be angered at what the politicians have done to this country, he would be disgusted by those so-called citizens who want to basically sell out our country to the Americans.

 

[brihard]

Not advocating for it, but from a pure economic viewpoint it would be logical. But human interactions never follow a logical pathway.

Economic rationality needs to be firmly centered in our national policy, certainly- but with the recognition that any sovereignty ceded to the U.S. will not be easily, if ever, regained. Policy that’s economically optimal may also irrevocably compromise our sovereignty, and I think that’s something that still really matters to most of us.

And just to be clear I’m not accusing you personally of being one of those who would want to actually join the U.S. There’s some blending of discussion here. I know you’re nothing if not a loyal Canadian.

 

[Kirkhill]

Two consecutive Trump posts on his Truth Social platform yesterday:

View attachment 89980
View attachment 89981

Blatantly threatening national sovereignty via social media again.

Many Panamans, of course, remember the 1989 US invasion frames as deposing a military dictator. There would be no such “just cause” this time. I hope a Trump has advisors who can very soberly clue him in to how very easily the canal could be effectively closed by a Panamanian insurgency. The world doesn’t need this kind of bullshit right now.

Torn am I.

I recognize the Chinese threat and the rationale about ensuring US access. I am a good North American.

On the other hand I was born in Britain in 1956 while my dad awaited recall to the colours for Suez.

Suez represented a Soviet opportunity and a threat to UK (and French, Israeli - and to a lesser extent Dutch) interests east of Suez.

Eisenhower created the anti-American EU.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Economic rationality needs to be firmly centered in our national policy, certainly- but with the recognition that any sovereignty ceded to the U.S. will not be easily, if ever, regained. Policy that’s economically optimal may also irrevocably compromise our sovereignty, and I think that’s something that still really matters to most of us.

And just to be clear I’m not accusing you personally of being one of those who would want to actually join the U.S. There’s some blending of discussion here. I know you’re nothing if not a loyal Canadian.

Even prior to the war of 1812, the border states did not want to attack BNA as they were good customers, it was the States that did not have economic ties with BNA that wanted the war.

Economically out here on the west coast, Vancouver and Seattle are considered as "One port" , so goods destined to Vancouver might get shipped to Seattle to be unloaded and transshipped north to Fraser Valley. My friend found this out the hard way when a shipment of shotguns from Norinco destined for Vancouver was diverted to Seattle, unloaded and then seized by US customs as Norinco is banned from importing. That took a year to fix. So we are very tied to the US in more ways than people realize. Feedstock from Kinder Morgan gets sent to the US, refined and shipped back to the Lower Mainland to be sold to customers. Yet Canadian consumers are very different than Americans.

 

[RangerRay]

This shorter English version covers a lot of the same ground and talking points ...

Pierre Poilievre's message to Donald Trump

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he has 'the strength and the smarts' to stand up for Canada against Trump.

www.ctvnews.ca

Merci.

So this isn’t a case of saying one message in English and another en francais?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Merci.

So this isn’t a case of saying one message in English and another en francais?

I'll leave the nuances to those who have French as their first language, but in my own "I can pick up the broadest strokes" listen to the French, good message/narrative discipline keeping the general tone and direction in both English & French. As always, I stand to be corrected.

 

[dimsum]

I'll leave the nuances to those who have French as their first language, but in my own "I can pick up the broadest strokes" listen to the French, good message/narrative discipline keeping the general tone and direction in both English & French. As always, I stand to be corrected.

If a Canadian politician tries to have different talking points depending on the language, then they should be rightly called out.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If a Canadian politician tries to have different talking points depending on the language, then they should be rightly called out.

There had been MSM coverage of times when the English & French don’t quite match for sure. Pierre Poilievre’s nuances on the fate CBC vs Radio Canada come to mind.

 

[RangerRay]

If a Canadian politician tries to have different talking points depending on the language, then they should be rightly called out.

It wouldn’t be the first time this happened…and only those opposed to said politician called them out. And the media at the time treated said calling out as partisan whinging.