I think you’re missing a point there. C is stating the reaction NOW not the reaction back then.
Give away Puerto Rico.
Still doesn’t change that it was wildly unpopular in 1977
I was against it in 1977. I’ve changed my mind, though.
That’s pretty much the list I was going to post. IOW, he’s just spouting whatever comes into his increasingly unhinged and addled brain with no filter between it and his pie-hole and no thought or understanding behind any of it.
For example, he proclaimed a few days ago that Canadians should welcome the opportunity to join the US because their taxes would be cut by 60%. Aside from the fact that this a complete lie (the personal income tax burden in Canada is similar to that in the US, and the corporate tax rate is actually less) what the Orange Felon is comically ignorant of is how much he’s despised in Canada and how fiercely loyal most Canadians are to the nation’s core values, such as free universal health care, strong gun control, sane governance, and social egalitarianism.
There was no time in modern history when a union with the US would have been realistic, but today Trump is the living orange embodiment of why virtually every Canadian wants to distance themselves from the US as much as possible, at least for the next four years.
Trump is doing what he always does, throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, meaning:
- It won’t require much work or sacrifice (from him).
- It won’t be politically risky (for him).
- It will channel public attention and opinion in a way favorable to him.
- It can be blamed on someone else if it goes wrong.
Honestly, many of Trump’s needs can be met just by proposing crazy shit like this. It doesn’t actually need to happen, and if it does, that’s just gravy on the cake.
The thing to be concerned about is not any particular crazy idea, but the sheer number of them in the pipeline. Odds are decent that one of the crazy ideas will land, but even if they don’t, they serve to provide cover for other agendas that are equally outrageous but a lot more achievable.
I can’t be so dismissive when the incoming leader of the most powerful country in the world is taking about annexing my country.
The existence of illegal Chinese police stations in the US has been officially reported by the DoJ. The purpose was intimidating Chinese dissidents in the US, I guess by reminding them that Big Panda is always watching.
That incident does reinforce how China is creative, motivated, and brazen when it comes to its national interests, though I’d struggle to connect that incident to Panama. Could they, would they try some sneaky shit in the Canal zone? I’m sure they would, I’m sure they’re looking at options, but I can’t imagine what they’d come up with. It’s not a top-secret military base.
They tried before and got their arses kicked.
I definitely didn’t mean to sound dismissive, it’s just a clear-eyed description of how Trump operates. He says things that he has no real intention of doing unless it seems like low-hanging fruit (a low-effort, low-risk win for Trump).
That doesn’t mean the risk can be dismissed, not at all. But does seizing Panama count as low-hanging fruit? I would suggest no. So take that as a degree of reassurance, not a dismissal.
I’m not talking about Panama, i’m talking about his plans for a hostile takeover of Canada.
That would be even more difficult than taking Panama.
This is the key part that a lot of people miss. Trump doesn’t actually have to do the things he talks about - he just makes mouth noises until his followers praise him, and if anyone asks about specifics he’ll just say “We’ll be making a major announcement in two weeks” and hope that by then they’re distracted by the next culture war bugaboo.
See also “infrastructure week”.
It’s still Trump, and the same principle applies. Do you think Trump would see a hostile takeover of Canada as low-risk and low-effort?
At least from a military perspective I’d have to say no, though Canada’s growing right-wing gives me concern that a military takeover might be unnecessary, maybe a political revolution is more realistic. It still seems like a longshot, but as a Canadian, you’d have a better read than I would.
Wouldn’t an attempted takeover of Canada also involve the entire Commonwealth as well as NATO and the United Nations? There’d be a plethora of nations to rise up against such an act of brazen U.S. imperialism, wouldn’t there?
I assume @Peter_Morris was referencing the war of 1812.
The question is, what’s happening over there while we’re looking at the dancing monkey in front of us?
Right-wing populism is cropping up all over, but it has to be seen in perspective. Outside of Alberta, Canada is a very liberal social democracy. This is where a few years ago some right-wing zealots (I believe notably including Ezra Levant) tried to start a right-wing news network (Sun News Network) that was meant to be a Canadian version of Fox News, which is the most popular and profitable “news” channel in the US. But in Canada, Sun News limped along for about a year with hardly any advertisers because they had hardly any viewers interested in hearing right-wing lies. They eventually couldn’t pay their bills and turned off the lights.
In the context of an informed public, Canada has two things the US doesn’t – a robust public broadcaster in the form of the CBC providing national broadcast coverage over both radio and television, and (in my uncited opinion, at least) a de facto set of expectations for broadcast journalism such that even the private TV networks tend to value integrity over sensationalism.
Plus the invasion of Québec in 1775.
Fun fact: Canada was the first foreign country the US invaded.
Well, we did invite Nova Scotia to join in the Revolution.