Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[rousseau]

Geotag277, you misunderstand so much and your point of view is rarely coherent, either intentionally or unintentionally setting up strawmen to knock down and derailing otherwise interesting debate. It's a waste of time arguing politics with you. For example:

Originally Posted by geotag277

At the heart of my response is, it is patently absurd to say "This political opponent has zero appeal to other people and is obviously bad for humanity".

This has nothing to do with what I said. Nowhere did I say or suggest that Trump has zero appeal to other people.

I've listened to Trump. I've listened and heard what his supporters say. I've seen his policy positions. It's perfectly understandable why Trump appealed to his supporters. There is also very little evidence that those supporters are reasonable people, at least when it comes to politics.

Half of Americans believe that the creation story of Genesis is literal truth and that the earth is 6,000 years old. 80% of Americans are Christians, and half of those American Christians believe our beloved Messiah Jesus Christ is coming back to earth in the next 40 years. Half of the American voting public put George Bush in office twice. Almost half of them wanted Palin there. Now almost half of them put Trump there.

There's no axiomatic principle that says that there is definitely reason in all sides of a debate. Sometimes people are reasonable, sometimes many of them aren't. Germans weren't very reasonable in the 1930s, but since the 1950s they've been among the most reasonable people on earth (Kraftwerk is the sanest pop group of all time, for example). Not all Clinton supporters were reasonable people, but, on the whole, and in comparison, they were the voice of reason in the U.S. in 2016.

When a ten-year-old child at a birthday party says "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive," you chuckle in delight at such zany precociousness. In any other less insane year a potential presidential candidate having said something so unbelievably insane just a few short years previously as a sixty-something would have been immediately laughed out of the competition, and rightly so.

But not now. Now this insane clown is going to be president.

"If we have nukes, why can't we use them?" Yeah, that's a good question, Mr. President.

[OutOfTowner]

I predict more Starbucks, Costco's, Walmart's, MacDo's, etc., etc., more Netflix, more dependance upon America.. you know, more of the same.

Interesting fact: Canada has more Starbucks and Costco's per capita than any country on earth- including the U.S.!

Makes me proud.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Geotag277, you misunderstand so much and your point of view is rarely coherent, either intentionally or unintentionally setting up strawmen to knock down and derailing otherwise interesting debate. It's a waste of time arguing politics with you. For example:



This has nothing to do with what I said. Nowhere did I say or suggest that Trump has zero appeal to other people.

I've listened to Trump. I've listened and heard what his supporters say. I've seen his policy positions. It's perfectly understandable why Trump appealed to his supporters. There is also very little evidence that those supporters are reasonable people, at least when it comes to politics.

Half of Americans believe that the creation story of Genesis is literal truth and that the earth is 6,000 years old. 80% of Americans are Christians, and half of those American Christians believe our beloved Messiah Jesus Christ is coming back to earth in the next 40 years. Half of the American voting public put George Bush in office twice. Almost half of them wanted Palin there. Now almost half of them put Trump there.

There's no axiomatic principle that says that there is definitely reason in all sides of a debate. Sometimes people are reasonable, sometimes many of them aren't. Germans weren't very reasonable in the 1930s, but since the 1950s they've been among the most reasonable people on earth (Kraftwerk is the sanest pop group of all time, for example). Not all Clinton supporters were reasonable people, but, on the whole, and in comparison, they were the voice of reason in the U.S. in 2016.

When a ten-year-old child at a birthday party says "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive," you chuckle in delight at such zany precociousness. In any other less insane year a potential presidential candidate having said something so unbelievably insane just a few short years previously as a sixty-something would have been immediately laughed out of the competition, and rightly so.

But not now. Now this insane clown is going to be president.

"If we have nukes, why can't we use them?" Yeah, that's a good question, Mr. President.

I hear you, rousseau. But then again, there are people like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.593811526f16

And there are a lot of people like her. Trump couldn't have won without them.

It's a huge head-scratcher.

[SHOFEAR]

Speaking of the Daily Show and limousine liberals...They sure don't practice what they preach.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/...tleground.html

One P.S. 452 parent speaking out against the move is comedian and former Daily Show correspondent Jason Jones, who’s married to Samantha Bee. "To portray any opposition as classist or racist is as bad as it can get," Jones told WNYC. And elsewhere: "We are not divided,” he said at a public hearing about the proposal, “we are absolutely united in wanting what's best for our children," then encouraged fellow parents not to talk to the press about the controversy.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The interesting thing about Donald Trump of course, is that he represents the most interesting facet of this phenomenon. He is not a conservative or a right winger, nor a Republican. He says things that would make Republicans' heads explode in a typical year. But because he represents their team, Republicans and even right wingers in Canada jump on board and forget about what they once believed in. Bizarre.

So I think what Rousseau highlights is less partisan than you make it out to be. In fact, I don't think your post makes sense in respect to Trump. Trump does not represent a political philosophy and the typical left-right divide that you were discussing, he rejected the philosophy of many of his own supporters (especially on foreign policy). What he represents is a team, and supporters blindly follow their team no matter what. Political beliefs, apparently, are fluid.

I would have agreed with you, as I long assumed his only ideology was "the deal" and amour propre. I'm struggling with that, however, in the context of his intensely conservative Cabinet appointments. Perhaps that's just a pragmatic way of keeping Congress and the base on his side, but it's hard to think it doesn't reflect his own views on issues.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I hear you, rousseau. But then again, there are people like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.593811526f16

And there are a lot of people like her. Trump couldn't have won without them.

It's a huge head-scratcher.

No time for lengthy replies, just dropping in here, but the critical responses in the comments to her article are good reading for making sense of this kind of phenomenon.

Of necessity you use broad brush strokes when discussing political movements. There are some reasonable voices on the Trump side and there are unreasonable voices on the Clinton side. I blathered on at length in a ranty harangue about political correctness in the Trudeau thread, for example. But when you weigh the two sides, the scales do tip very heavily toward insanity on the Trump side. The evidence is plain.

[Antigonish]

I for one welcome our new overlord Donald Trump.

I hope he proves everyone wrong, simply for the fact that if the US failed we all go down with them.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I hear you, rousseau. But then again, there are people like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.593811526f16

And there are a lot of people like her. Trump couldn't have won without them.

It's a huge head-scratcher.

My best friend got me on trump,and it was his duterte supporting filopino wife that pushed him right
If this is surprising your likely more sexist and racist than most

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by stryker

my best friend got me on trump,and it was his duterte supporting filopino wife that pushed him right
if this is surprising your likely more sexist and racist than most

wtf?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

No time for lengthy replies, just dropping in here, but the critical responses in the comments to her article are good reading for making sense of this kind of phenomenon.

Of necessity you use broad brush strokes when discussing political movements. There are some reasonable voices on the Trump side and there are unreasonable voices on the Clinton side. I blathered on at length in a ranty harangue about political correctness in the Trudeau thread, for example. But when you weigh the two sides, the scales do tip very heavily toward insanity on the Trump side. The evidence is plain.

I do think that the side that is progressive/on the left would be wise to be not be so dismissive of people like her, and seek answers (within their movement and policies) as to why so many people are making this kind of switch.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Acajack

wtf?

I've noticed these sentiments in the Filipino-Canadian community too (Duterte supporters). From the other side of the world he sounds like a lunatic, but maybe the drug/crime problems in the Philippines are so bad people just want anyone to fix it

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

wtf?

I didnt mean litterally you it was an if statement

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

I didnt mean litterally you it was an if statement

OK, phew!

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I've noticed these sentiments in the Filipino-Canadian community too (Duterte supporters). From the other side of the world he sounds like a lunatic, but maybe the drug/crime problems in the Philippines are so bad people just want anyone to fix it

Filipino s are generally very right-wing
Even when they vote liberal its directly for racial privledge
The liberals buy votes from immigrants,using tactics that would never work in their homeland.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Filipino s are generally very right-wing
Even when they vote liberal its directly for racial privledge
The liberals buy votes from immigrants,using tactics that would never work in their homeland.

Noticed that too, and the Liberals are pretty guilty of 'buying' votes through immigration policies. It was interesting to see the percentage of latinos who voted Trump too, especially within the Cuban community. South Americans + Filipinos are very Catholic and traditional. It doesn't fit the narrative that PoC are super liberal and only the WHITE MALES are racist religious kooks.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Noticed that too, and the Liberals are pretty guilty of 'buying' votes through immigration policies. It was interesting to see the percentage of latinos who voted Trump too, especially within the Cuban community. South Americans + Filipinos are very Catholic and traditional. It doesn't fit the narrative that PoC are super liberal and only the WHITE MALES are racist religious kooks.

Yeah the vote buying never got so blatant until the 10 dollar bill issue.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I've noticed these sentiments in the Filipino-Canadian community too (Duterte supporters). From the other side of the world he sounds like a lunatic, but maybe the drug/crime problems in the Philippines are so bad people just want anyone to fix it

Has the Philippines ever been a serious country in terms of its politics? They seem like banana republic Latin Americans. On steroids.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Yeah the vote buying never got so blatant until the 10 dollar bill issue.

Give it a rest.

[jmt18325]

How dare we put a black woman on the bill. I don't really get the outrage.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

How dare we put a black woman on the bill. I don't really get the outrage.

I don't either, but we've been through it ad nauseum. Seriously time to move on. Those who truly object can always use fives and twenties....