Victor Villas @ villasv @lemmy.ca

mostly inactive, lemmy.ca is now too tainted with trolls from big instances

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

497

Joined

2 yr. ago

No sympathy for shopping malls, it’s just a bad concept that should die faster

Well, in that regard, it's like most Canadian provinces or pretty much anywhere else in NA except perhaps a few Bible Belt states

To join

There's no realistic outlook for Canada joining the EU. But everything else stands, Canada doesn't need to join the EU to increase its relationships and agreements.

That's because she's MapleMAGA^{(https://www.instagram.com/jasminemooney)}

You can tell by the deference she displays to oppressive figures like detention guards along the way. This is a total "leopards ate my face" moment.

Fuck off. Your government is an aggressor and we don't owe you a pat on the back for not making it worse

If your government is oppressing you, go fight it. Tired of this bullshit of Americans around here wanting cookies for not being republicans.

nobody is asking for it, not interested in your consent

Hm, maybe I had a different idea of what “medium” meant. I thought it was referring to brewers that had smaller production than Molson.

Because none of you are talking like you’ve ever seen a bigger neighbour wipe out your local industry. Or paidnany attention while Walmart and Amazon decimated things.

Not sure what I said pressed your buttons, I just wanted to make sense of how a medium company would have an advantage against a bigger company in terms of logistic costs.

and getting things off the island is expensive. Medium sized brewers from Ontario and Quebec will eat their lunch.

But isn't shipping thins in the island also expensive? Why would medium sized brewers be at an advantage?

It looks more like "Molson-Coors could easily terminate the local factory because the bigger Molson-Coors factories in Quebec and Ontario could pick up the demand with lower production costs".

I don't know if the economics of shipping the beer inland is cheaper than maintaining a local factory, but if that really is the case then Newfoundland might wanna keep some of its protectionist guards up or be smart about the barriers. Like allowing beer in from small producers only, not the likes of Molson.

The US and Canada haven’t fought since 1812. Which European border of a major super power has a longer history of being close allies?

What’s the definition of “being a close ally”? You’re using the date of Canada and USA last conflict, but for Spain and France you’re using political alignment.

I think Portugal and Spain also make a good candidate if we’re looking back only until the early 1800’s. The border itself had a few changes but they were peaceful IIRC, the last conflict was 1801?

On a separate note, the quote says has been the most peaceful and beneficial, so it’s not so much as a matter of peaceful for the longest time. Even if EU borders weren’t peaceful way back, quite a few of them are so peaceful nowadays that they barely register as existing. In terms of most beneficial, I’m not sure how to analyze that.

The entire Western world benefits from a strong America.

Uhhh fuck no, Latin America has very little to be thankful for in a strong USA. This might be news for Canadians but the rest of the continent has always* suffered at the hands of American imperialism.

*always = 19th century onwards, ie post colonialism

Canada is a sovereign state, because it has its own constitution and government. It is true that King Charles III is the head of the Monarchy but that is inconsequential and for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

I don't know why you think I'm assigning Trump voters any intelligence. I am certain they're incapable of critical thinking.

I'm not saying people are interpreting what "America First" means. What I'm saying is that the meaning of "America First" is clear to anyone who thinks it through, and it takes a moron to not to consider that eventually Trump's aggression will turn to allies, and to large swaths of his own voter base as well.

But the fact that the meaning is obfuscated in discourse doesn't change that people voted for this, because there was ample evidence of the true meaning, evidence that can only be ignored purposefully. They voted for this, they voted him for "America First". It's like driving home without thinking, with the brain fully on autopilot. People know what they're doing, even if they're not thinking it through.

if Trump was campaigning on a strategy of invading Canada from the start, I see things playing out very differently.

Obviously, but irrelevant. Like I said... Electing someone based on what they say (promises) instead of based on what they did (specially to others) is a form of “not giving a fuck”.

Trump will not campaign on being aggressive towards allies. He'll do it after securing power. During campaign, that's what the "America First" rhetoric means: vote me to strong-arm everyone I can. People voted him in for this, now we're seeing it.

There was ample evidence that he would be belligerent against allies.

The threats to Canadian sovereignty feel very new and the reaction from Canada feels very different this time.

That much is fair to say. The disrespect amped up a thousand percent compared to just threatening tariffs like last time, which explains why the reaction feels so different.

But once again, even though the scale is increased and it might feel new to you and to many Canadians, nothing here should be a surprise. Trump praised Putin on invading Ukraine, he in no uncertain terms threatened the invasion of Venezuela, and floated the idea of bombing Mexico.

Threatening to annex Canada is surprising insofar as being a surprising choice of target. That he's deranged and bellicose towards other countries, it's nothing new. So every time he points his enshitification gaze at some other group, Americans voting far-right (or not voting at all) will still be defensive as we tell them: yes, you voted for this shit, exactly this shit, you just didn't realize you were doing because you didn't give a fuck.

Now the target is kind of a friend, so a few fucks are given. That's the only, and very minor, difference. Can I predict which country he'll threaten next? No. But he will keep at it. Over and over.

Edit to add one last thing: "They elected him based on his campaign" is a cop-out. Electing someone based on what they say (promises) instead of based on what they did (specially to others) is a form of "not giving a fuck".

So, in your fury, what would you suggest?

Get organized and ramp up your activism, whatever kind fits your life and priorities.

inb4: Alaska allows Russian military base and Russian military exercises near Yukon and BC

There's no relevance to "did". There's "doing" and "not doing".

He literally started this tariffs thing last time too. No one can claim to be blindsided by this.

Everyone who voted Trump - including those mad because they did not elect him to do this - has brainworms.

It's just that Americans don't care, so they wouldn't remember how Trump tried to strong-arm Mexico and Canada using tariffs in his first term. Americans will burn the rest of the world in the hopes of cheaper gas. Now, increasingly burning themselves in hopes of cheaper gas.

It happens.

Get organized.