3 ms·

Good. Many Canadians view Carney as a "war-time" PM and I think that's accurate. The Trump administration has treated Canada and Canadians appallingly. It wi

Good. Many Canadians view Carney as a "war-time" PM and I think that's accurate. The Trump administration has treated Canada and Canadians appallingly. It will take many years and another President, but I hope the U.S. can repair relations. The onus is on us. Canada honored its commitments. The U.S. started this stupid trade war.

throwatdem12311 6mo ago
It’s gonna take more than a dem POTUS sucking up to us to fix this. MAGA will outlast Trump and the everlasting threat of another lunatic Republican president doing this crap again means this isn’t going away as easily as replacing a president.
- hyperman1 6mo ago
  Before Trump, there was Bush Jr. The world's view on him was also dim, but 9/11/2001 made the world cut the USA a lot of slack. It turns out he was the new normal, instead of a temporary savage spot. Trump is not the only USA leader in the back of the world's mind.
  - wk_end 6mo ago
    Bush II was awful in all sorts of ways; it's not crazy to say that as chaotic as Trump's first presidency was, it was nowhere near as destructive as Bush's terms. I in no way want to white-wash Bush, which I feel like some people have done in the wake of Trump. But despite that, Bush's presidency was generally continuous with American presidencies since World War II. He still, at root, steered the ship as though he were a believer in the narrative of America as a leader of the free world, rather than as a selfish actor who needs to get one over on everyone else in order to get ahead. Regardless of the world's judgement of Bush, I don't think it sowed much doubt in many minds about their overall relationship with America, and not just because of 9/11 or because he was just one president. The US could have continued electing Bushes forever and not much would have changed. Whereas: Trump's presidency - especially this second term - is utterly destabilizing. He's single-handedly destroyed America's soft power and place in the world.
    - michaelbarton 6mo ago
      I agree. I think it’s fair to say that while many people might agree Bush II is someone you could have a beer with compared to the current prest his foreign policy decisions lead to excess mortality in the range of half a million. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.1371/journal.pmed.1001533 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.137...
      - Fnoord 6mo ago
        I'm not sure I could drink a beer with Bush Jr at my fav pub in The Hague, but I welcome him to try.
CoastalCoder 6mo ago
I fear it's going to take more than just one other president. Now we've all see what one bad POTUS can do to the world, and I don't know if/how/why the world would trulyove past that. It reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "The Shelter" [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shelter_(The_Twilight_Zone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shelter_(The_Twilight_Zone...
swat535 6mo ago
It's not just Canada, who is going to trust US anymore? Certainly no Europe after tarrifs, NATO, Ukraine, and this war.. Certainly not GCC after this war Certainly not Asia after this war Certainly not Japan after the awful "nuke" jokes and abuses .. like really? Who is on US aside? Dems can try all they want, but the US trust is gone imo.
- brazukadev 6mo ago
  You missed South America. We did not trust the US before but are forced to give the US business preference as per the so called Monroe Doctrine, now with a "Trump Corollary"
- adjejmxbdjdn 6mo ago
  The U.S. has 75+ years of an incredible consumer economy, ties with nations, and deep entrenchment in civilian supply chains and military logistics, so countries can’t just break away. What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies. It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point. The problem, from a U.S. perspective, is that 2 decades from now, these decisions might have cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars, but it will largely be impossible to tell because the nature of losses will be in billions of dollars of economic activity that could have been created but were never even conceived, so the alternate path will be impossible to know.
  - notatoad 6mo ago
    a 75 year history isn't anything to brag about on a global scale, that's a very young country. an unbroken 75 year history as a reliable partner might be something, but if your time as a reliable economic partner only lasts 75 years, that's not very reliable. the one thing that the US still has is money. countries want to trade with countries that have money, whether they're trustworthy or untrustworthy, moral or immoral. as long as the US continues to be rich, they'll continue to have good trading relationships. we've all just got to hope that this current trend reverses before the us stops being a rich country.
michtzik 6mo ago
> Canada honored its commitments. Two decades ago: "in 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending." Canada has not remotely upheld this agreement.
- eli_gottlieb 6mo ago
  That has nothing to do with Trump's trade policies w.r.t Canada, though.
  - palmotea 6mo ago
    > That has nothing to do with Trump's trade policies w.r.t Canada, though. If Canada's going to wag a finger at the US about breaking commitments, it does.
- throwpoaster 6mo ago
  Yeah, we only recently began honouring our agreements[0], and even then we did it my recategorizing non-military spending as military[1]. [0]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/history-canada-nato-military-spending-targets https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/history-canada-nato-mil... [1]: "That five per cent figure is somewhat deceptive, since just 3.5 per cent of that will go to core defence needs, while 1.5 per cent is to cover spending loosely related to national security — such as funding for maritime ports, airports and other infrastructure." - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-us-ties-now-a-weakness-in-address-to-canadians/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-u...
- drunkan 6mo ago
  ah yes a perfectly reasonable explanation to start a trade war with your ally that hurts both economies.

throwatdem12311 6mo ago

It’s gonna take more than a dem POTUS sucking up to us to fix this. MAGA will outlast Trump and the everlasting threat of another lunatic Republican president doing this crap again means this isn’t going away as easily as replacing a president.

hyperman1 6mo ago
Before Trump, there was Bush Jr. The world's view on him was also dim, but 9/11/2001 made the world cut the USA a lot of slack. It turns out he was the new normal, instead of a temporary savage spot. Trump is not the only USA leader in the back of the world's mind.
- wk_end 6mo ago
  Bush II was awful in all sorts of ways; it's not crazy to say that as chaotic as Trump's first presidency was, it was nowhere near as destructive as Bush's terms. I in no way want to white-wash Bush, which I feel like some people have done in the wake of Trump. But despite that, Bush's presidency was generally continuous with American presidencies since World War II. He still, at root, steered the ship as though he were a believer in the narrative of America as a leader of the free world, rather than as a selfish actor who needs to get one over on everyone else in order to get ahead. Regardless of the world's judgement of Bush, I don't think it sowed much doubt in many minds about their overall relationship with America, and not just because of 9/11 or because he was just one president. The US could have continued electing Bushes forever and not much would have changed. Whereas: Trump's presidency - especially this second term - is utterly destabilizing. He's single-handedly destroyed America's soft power and place in the world.
  - michaelbarton 6mo ago
    I agree. I think it’s fair to say that while many people might agree Bush II is someone you could have a beer with compared to the current prest his foreign policy decisions lead to excess mortality in the range of half a million. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.1371/journal.pmed.1001533 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.137...
    - Fnoord 6mo ago
      I'm not sure I could drink a beer with Bush Jr at my fav pub in The Hague, but I welcome him to try.

CoastalCoder 6mo ago

I fear it's going to take more than just one other president. Now we've all see what one bad POTUS can do to the world, and I don't know if/how/why the world would trulyove past that. It reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "The Shelter" [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shelter_(The_Twilight_Zone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shelter_(The_Twilight_Zone...

swat535 6mo ago

It's not just Canada, who is going to trust US anymore? Certainly no Europe after tarrifs, NATO, Ukraine, and this war.. Certainly not GCC after this war Certainly not Asia after this war Certainly not Japan after the awful "nuke" jokes and abuses .. like really? Who is on US aside? Dems can try all they want, but the US trust is gone imo.

brazukadev 6mo ago
You missed South America. We did not trust the US before but are forced to give the US business preference as per the so called Monroe Doctrine, now with a "Trump Corollary"
adjejmxbdjdn 6mo ago
The U.S. has 75+ years of an incredible consumer economy, ties with nations, and deep entrenchment in civilian supply chains and military logistics, so countries can’t just break away. What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies. It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point. The problem, from a U.S. perspective, is that 2 decades from now, these decisions might have cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars, but it will largely be impossible to tell because the nature of losses will be in billions of dollars of economic activity that could have been created but were never even conceived, so the alternate path will be impossible to know.
- notatoad 6mo ago
  a 75 year history isn't anything to brag about on a global scale, that's a very young country. an unbroken 75 year history as a reliable partner might be something, but if your time as a reliable economic partner only lasts 75 years, that's not very reliable. the one thing that the US still has is money. countries want to trade with countries that have money, whether they're trustworthy or untrustworthy, moral or immoral. as long as the US continues to be rich, they'll continue to have good trading relationships. we've all just got to hope that this current trend reverses before the us stops being a rich country.

michtzik 6mo ago

> Canada honored its commitments. Two decades ago: "in 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending." Canada has not remotely upheld this agreement.

eli_gottlieb 6mo ago
That has nothing to do with Trump's trade policies w.r.t Canada, though.
- palmotea 6mo ago
  > That has nothing to do with Trump's trade policies w.r.t Canada, though. If Canada's going to wag a finger at the US about breaking commitments, it does.
throwpoaster 6mo ago
Yeah, we only recently began honouring our agreements[0], and even then we did it my recategorizing non-military spending as military[1]. [0]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/history-canada-nato-military-spending-targets https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/history-canada-nato-mil... [1]: "That five per cent figure is somewhat deceptive, since just 3.5 per cent of that will go to core defence needs, while 1.5 per cent is to cover spending loosely related to national security — such as funding for maritime ports, airports and other infrastructure." - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-us-ties-now-a-weakness-in-address-to-canadians/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-u...
drunkan 6mo ago
ah yes a perfectly reasonable explanation to start a trade war with your ally that hurts both economies.