Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by whatnext

He's nothing "of the North", as he basically lives the States. He has no business to be in the running for a shot as PM of Canada.

His argument is that unlike a college professor he actuallys need to for business reasons.

It's not some casual think but a matter of fact his whole campaign is based on the concept that canada is being too canadian to grow its industry.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by The Macallan

Your post is nonsense. This is not being presented as something that has just happened. The man has come to wider public notoriety because of the new president. People have researched his record as a result of his notoriety. They came up with this dismaying sequence. CPAC, a conservative group, "disinvited" him and it became news. You act as if the timing of what he said is more important than the content of what he said.

lol george taika said something pretty similar and no one cares.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Stryker

His argument is that unlike a college professor he actuallys need to for business reasons.

It's not some casual think but a matter of fact his whole campaign is based on the concept that canada is being too canadian to grow its industry.

We've got plenty of wealthy successful businessmen living and working in Canada. That argument is invalid.

[The Macallan]

Originally Posted by Stryker

lol george taika said something pretty similar and no one cares.

I presume you mean George Takei. And that is relevant in what way in your crusade to present Milo as some kind of victim? You seem unwilling to acknowledge that this arose from the fact a conservative group, CPAC, withdrew an invitation to Milo to speak. It does make it hard to carry on with the liberal media witchhunt meme, doesn't it. For the record, I am not criticizing CPAC for their decision.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by The Macallan

I presume you mean George Takei. And that is relevant in what way in your crusade to present Milo as some kind of victim? You seem unwilling to acknowledge that this arose from the fact a conservative group, CPAC, withdrew an invitation to Milo to speak. It does make it hard to carry on with the liberal media witchhunt meme, doesn't it. For the record, I am not criticizing CPAC for their decision.

It's completely relevant though. The two scenarios are the same, yet the outcome and outrage isn't. Hence, the contradiction.

The fact that a conservative group pushed the Milo outrage doesn't make it any better or worse. There are a lot of conservative groups that are strictly anti-Trump, and anyone remotely associated with him will (and has) been targeted.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Stryker

So who in popular media isn't an attention seeking asshole?

It all depends on the way it's done. Most media personalities use various platforms to promote their brands, which is what exactly what Milo does. But his form of communication is 'attack' and his message is mostly hot air. His arguments are put forth specifically to create controversy and appeal to a fragile and socially incompetent segment of the population: basement dwelling game addicted aging male teenagers who hide behind warrior avatars and dream of conquering the world between dates with porn girlfriends. He's certainly a smart individual, but he's vapid and rather dull, and his arguments are just empty rhetoric. Mind you, in order to appeal to his fan base, he's aware that he must remain all style and little substance. He's an opportunist and if albino elephants were the hated group du jour that's what he would pay attention to in order to sell his nazi inspired t-shirts.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

It all depends on the way it's done. Most media personalities use various platforms to promote their brands, which is what exactly what Milo does. But his form of communication is 'attack' and his message is mostly hot air. His arguments are put forth specifically to create controversy and appeal to a fragile and socially incompetent segment of the population: basement dwelling game addicted aging male teenagers who hide behind warrior avatars and dream of conquering the world between dates with porn girlfriends. He's certainly a smart individual, but he's vapid and rather dull, and his arguments are just empty rhetoric. Mind you, in order to appeal to his fan base, he's aware that he must remain all style and little substance. He's an opportunist and if albino elephants were the hated group du jour that's what he would pay attention to in order to sell his nazi inspired t-shirts.

Well said, and yeah, pretty much exactly. It's worth noting that before "gamergate" Milo absolutely loathed gamers. Just yelled at them any chance he got. He glommed onto it because he saw an audience he could pander to.

And before the usual suspect comes in, yes, I do know someone who has been closely involved in that particular unpleasantness. And also yes, he does know Anita and doesn't care for her much.

At the end of the day I have zero sympathy for someone who went out of his way to offend people for the sole purpose of making money. That's all Milo was, and all he will be. People should probably look into his scamming of $100k for "white male scholarships".

[Pinus]

I must be living under a rock, because I have no idea who this "Milo" character is

[The Macallan]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

It's completely relevant though. The two scenarios are the same, yet the outcome and outrage isn't. Hence, the contradiction.

The fact that a conservative group pushed the Milo outrage doesn't make it any better or worse. There are a lot of conservative groups that are strictly anti-Trump, and anyone remotely associated with him will (and has) been targeted.

No time for a proper response this AM. We're moving. But the equivalency is not as close as you say, IMO. The real equivalency on the left would be what Bill Maher is reported to have said about a case of heterosexual interference with a child. There has been lots of controversy about Maher, deserved in my view. Count me as a left leaner who thinks very ill of Maher.

But to get to te main point, the wave of media criticism of the Trump administration may be partially the result of a leftward or more accurately, a centrist slant of media. But it is chiefly due to the amazing ineptitude of the administration itself. It's their own fault!

[geotag277]

I think this whole Milo versus Bill Maher thing is very symbolic of how intellectually vapid the Democratic movement has gotten in the United States.

Whereas a conservative (not exactly the right political term) commentator faces real consequences for making reprehensible commentary, a Liberal commentator faces absolutely zero backlash. Liberal commentators have descended into a kind of wild madness where they are thrashing around throwing poop in all directions desperately trying to see what sticks. They have no purpose or goal or principles or ideals other than to get their man elected.

They will pass over in silence any amoral behaviour on their own "side" as long as it works. It was plainly evident during the election, where even things like sexual assault was politicized to a ridiculous level. It was painfully obvious the crocodile tears commentators had over Trump suggesting he might further investigate and call into question the results of democracy, and then after "they" lost turning around and trying to undermine the democratic results.

It was painful to watch.

I know many Canadians have their own identities and emotions and entire psyches wrapped up in self identifying as "progressive", such that they naturally flock to Democratic commentary and repeating said vacuous political commentary that ends up being nothing more than Democratic party talking points. By doing so, they can pat themselves on the back for being "politically aware" and furthering the "obviously correct progressive agenda".

But there are real reasons that many Americans are fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties, and there are many many many good reasons why they voted for Trump. If people are being honest, it is why Sanders was also massively successful in the Democratic primaries, to the extent that Hillary Clinton made moves to sabotage him. It is why an inexperienced junior senator from Illinois was elected over Hillary Clinton in the primaries 8 years ago and went on to beat a career senator war hero.

So every time you call Trump insane, mentally unhinged, harbinger of chaos, or any other asinine juvenile political attack you read online - you are just peddling ignorance and ignoring the reasons that over 60 million Americans thought 4 more years of a Democratic White House was not a good idea, that an establishment Republican in the vein of Romney/McCain/Bush was not a good idea, and how many are hoping Trump's nature as a political outsider can shake up a badly broken Federal government that has failed the American people on many levels over the last few decades.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

So to summarize, you believe the main issue with the US is over-centralization, and devolution of power to the states is the solution?

I hope you're right. Decentralization is an easy fix.

Yes, I think over-centralization is one of the main problems with the United States Federal government.

There was a recent exchange on reddit over Maine practically begging the Federal government to adjust how it's welfare program is administrated, which I think is very symbolic of the problems and how things are continually going in the wrong direction.

In essence, welfare programs like food stamps were previously administered by the states. The Federal government decided to step in and throw money around to fund these state programs. This led to the Federal government exerting influence over how these programs are run. This led to lobbyists for food companies having one point of contact through the Federal government for influencing legislation.

The United States Federal government is a cesspool of lobbyists and special interests throwing tax payer money around to expand it's influence and work primarily for aforementioned lobbyists.

There is a reason the united states congress has perennially a low approval rating and the fault does not rest on either political party - they are both guilty. This is why I believe political outsiders have gotten dramatically more popular over the last couple decades, and why figures like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and yes, Donald Trump have been so politically successful.

There is a reason "Obamacare" was written the way it was. It was doomed to fail from the start. Is anyone wondering why companies like Humana - which were symbols of insurance company negligence and greed - have managed to double, triple, 4x their stock price during the "Obamacare" years? Is it any wonder why Republicans in Congress are currently dragging their feet on a replacement? Guess what? Any Obamacare replacement that actually improves the insurance situation in any way shape or form for the average American citizen will automatically be a non-starter because it would negatively impact insurance companies.

The problem is Americans only seem to care about the Presidential election, such that they think electing an outsider as President will magically cure the Federal government of it's problems. That isn't how it will be fixed, and it can only be fixed through the House and Senate elections. I think people will be waking up to that realization over the next few election cycles, because I think with the success of both Obama and Trump, the American people are reaching a bit of a boiling point.

It is helpful to point out that places like Massachusetts did not need to wait for the Federal government to fix insurance problems. It is highly questionable how much the Federal Department of Education has actually helped the American education system. Questioning these large overarching departments which have continually failed while spending billions and billions of dollars is, IMO, a large part of why Trump was elected. And hopefully people like Betsy DeVos can shake up these systems enough to prove out once and for all whether these departments can even have a viable path forward.

[1overcosc]

^ Interesting perspective. I generally support devolution (in Canada, I support giving more powers to the provinces), but wouldn't a lot of those problems also be fixable by making campaign finance reforms to limit the influence of big money lobbyists? At the federal level in Canada, we've actually done a pretty good job of doing that.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

wouldn't a lot of those problems also be fixable by making campaign finance reforms to limit the influence of big money lobbyists?

I think this question strikes at the very Achilles' heel of the entire Federal United States government democracy.

Who would pass these laws to limit big money in Congress?

It would have to be Congress, passing a law, to chop off their nose.

Congress itself is so decentralized and almost by it's very nature dysfunctional, such a blatant strike against Congress members themselves is impossible.

Obstinately, Congress is beholden to the American people and their constituency. Combined, the house and senate has over 500 members. Guess how many are talking and advocating for "Congressional reform"?

Zero.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

It's completely relevant though. The two scenarios are the same, yet the outcome and outrage isn't. Hence, the contradiction.

The fact that a conservative group pushed the Milo outrage doesn't make it any better or worse. There are a lot of conservative groups that are strictly anti-Trump, and anyone remotely associated with him will (and has) been targeted.

Considering Trump just spoke at CPAC the other day, I wouldn't say Milo's support of the president is at the root of why they didn't want him.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by Pinus

I must be living under a rock, because I have no idea who this "Milo" character is

Other way around, actually. Those who know who he is tend to be the ones without much of a life.

[SpongeG]

I read on a friend's facebook that a number of schools have cancelled cross-border trips to the USA that were planned months ago. I never knew so many school groups would trek down there.

There was also a story that a guy was not allowed into the states because they accessed his gay dating ap "scruff" and was denied entry.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I read on a friend's facebook that a number of schools have cancelled cross-border trips to the USA that were planned months ago. I never knew so many school groups would trek down there.

There was also a story that a guy was not allowed into the states because they accessed his gay dating ap "scruff" and was denied entry.

Quite a few Canadians are deciding not to visit the U.S. for shopping and vacations including me. I'll be in Cuba in a few weeks! Awesome beaches there.

Originally I had wanted to go to California but with Trump in power and all of the nonsense, I decided that I don't want to spend my money in the U.S.. I won't be doing any cross-border shopping either.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Quite a few Canadians are deciding not to visit the U.S. for shopping and vacations including me. I'll be in Cuba in a few weeks! Awesome beaches there.

Originally I had wanted to go to California but with Trump in power and all of the nonsense, I decided that I don't want to spend my money in the U.S.. I won't be doing any cross-border shopping either.

The "Trump Slump" is real:

...Thus, the prestigious Travel Weekly magazine (as close to an “official” travel publication as they come) has set the decline in foreign tourism at 6.8%. And the fall-off is not limited to Muslim travelers, but also extends to all incoming foreign tourists. Apparently, an attack on one group of tourists is regarded as an assault on all.

As far as travel by distinct religious groups, flight passengers from the seven Muslim-majority nations named by Trump were down by 80% in the last week of January and first week of February, according to Forward Keys, a well-known firm of travel statisticians. On the web, flight searches for trips heading to the U.S. out of all international locations was recently down by 17%. ..

http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscell...-united-states

I've got a trip booked to NYC in April, but after that, I can afford to visit other place around the globe.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Quite a few Canadians are deciding not to visit the U.S. for shopping and vacations including me. I'll be in Cuba in a few weeks! Awesome beaches there.

Originally I had wanted to go to California but with Trump in power and all of the nonsense, I decided that I don't want to spend my money in the U.S.. I won't be doing any cross-border shopping either.

Good to know you'll be supporting the diverse democracy that is cuba and not that dictator trump.

Seriously this is the absurdity of you people;.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Good to know you'll be supporting the diverse democracy that is cuba and not that dictator trump.

Seriously this is the absurdity of you people;.

Good point - will Loco101 be going to North Korea next to spend his hard-earned money over there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/de...y-destination/