Trump’s comments on Canada prompt surge of patriotism – in a Canadian way
-
"I fucking hate Quebec"
-
So now we’re treating every tantrum as a declaration of war?
Your entire method of argument is to gaslight, throw red herrings, and make shit up.
Nobody mentioned “declarations of war”.
What we have mentioned are threats. And threats should be perceived as threats. It is foolish to not take them seriously.
Guns don’t make fantasies real—they just make them louder.
Hate to tell you this, buddy, but the guns are real.
Ah, the classic slippery slope fallacy. Tariffs are economic tools, not invasion prep.
Right, because the USA never used economics as a weapon prior to an invasion. Oh wait. They have. That’s pretty much the textbook for how they operate.
Now I never said the USA will invade Canada, but you would be foolish to not consider the possibility and plan accordingly.
So it’s time to stop dismissing these annexation threats as “fantasy” and get real about how Trump might try to make this happen.
Cute deflection. Economic force is force, but it’s not annexation.
When Trump says he wants to annex Canada, and will use economic force to do this—following it up with tariffs—what will happen once that economic force doesn’t work?
Taking threats seriously doesn’t mean blowing them out of proportion.
Thing is, you’re not taking these threats seriously at all. You’re simply saying they won’t happen.
I literally asked you the simple question of how any of this addresses Trump’s annexation threats and you called them a “fantasy”.
Then I’d tell you to stop watching propaganda and start engaging with reality.
Right, “reality”.
And mine is based on understanding how power works beyond soundbites. Public statements are theater; policy is where the real game happens. But sure, keep quoting Trump like he’s Nostradamus.
Nostradamus is dead and buried. Trump is alive and has guns.
Projection much?
Fools are always certain of themselves.
-
I just like knowing I could fly a Canadian flag again, or have it's likeness displayed without being confused for a trucker convoy supporter, vaccine denier, or racist.
-
So, your rebuttal is to repeat the same baseless claim louder, as if volume equals validity? Let me spell it out: just because someone says something doesn’t make it actionable policy. Political theater thrives on hyperbole, and you’ve swallowed it whole.
The Canadian government isn’t cowering in fear of annexation; they’re navigating economic realities while you’re busy waving imaginary battle flags. Provincial governments have their own agendas, none of which involve preparing for a fictional invasion.
Your insistence on treating rhetoric as reality is the intellectual equivalent of shouting at clouds. Maybe step back, take a breath, and realize that not every soundbite is a declaration of war.
-
Asinine ass kissing troll
-
You're right about these very real issues and that they're the primary driver but I think you're wrong about considering armed annexation to be unrealistic. I think all of us are on a gut feel about it at this point and some of us have shifted our assessment from being a distraction to a real even if not very likely possibility.
-
Only a fool doesn't believe when some tells them their intentions and is surprised when it happens.
If I am wrong, I will be happy that I was prepared for the worst.
If you are wrong, your world will be crumbling because you don't want to imagine that you are wrong.
I hope you are right. At least I will be ready if you are wrong.
-
The annexation idea feels like a shortcut—a way to simplify a complex web of issues into something tangible, like borders or armies. But sovereignty isn’t just about physical lines; it’s about the erosion happening under the surface through economic and cultural dependency. That’s where the real fight is, and it’s already well underway.
I get the gut feeling, but relying on it risks missing the bigger picture. Armed annexation might make for dramatic speculation, but it distracts from the subtler, more insidious ways control is exerted. Let’s focus energy on understanding and addressing those deeper systems rather than chasing unlikely scenarios.
Here’s the thing: sovereignty is slipping away quietly, not with a bang but with a shrug. That’s worth more attention.
-
You’re right that being prepared is better than being blindsided, but preparation without discernment is just paranoia in disguise. Not every statement or intention is a prophecy; sometimes it’s just noise meant to provoke.
If your readiness gives you peace of mind, that’s fine. But don’t confuse it with a guarantee that the worst will happen. Living in constant anticipation of collapse isn’t strength—it’s surrendering to fear.
Instead of bracing for an apocalypse that may never come, maybe focus on building something worth preserving. Fear doesn’t make you prepared—it just keeps you stuck.
-
my sincere congratulations, from an american
-
Dunno if you've noticed, but the POTUS has crested the lift hill on the roller coaster of dementia and is gaining kinetic energy into the first turn. Months ago, he lost the ability to process metaphorical language (like my first sentence), which we saw when he promised to build an actual, literal dome over the United States like the one Israel has over it; or when he described in concrete terms the actual operation of the giant faucet in British Columbia that Canada uses to control water to the U.S. West Coast. The thing about dementia, having seen it first-hand in a family member, is that there will be good days and bad days, so even if we see him appearing to have it together (and it's not just from a teleprompter), there are days on which a complex issue by itself will totally escape him— much less a complex web of such issues. And those days will be coming much more often as time goes on and he continues to deteriorate.
That is to say, if your gut feeling was developed during his first term, don't trust it. He doesn't have the capacity for that kind of nuanced cunning any longer. If he's talking about annexation now, take it at face value. Take everything he says as literal now.
-
If dementia is the lens through which you’re viewing this, you’re missing the forest for the trees. The erosion of sovereignty isn’t about one figurehead’s cognitive decline; it’s about the systems that thrive on distraction while consolidating control. Focusing on the president’s mental state is like critiquing the paint job on a collapsing house—it’s irrelevant to the structural rot.
Literalism in politics is a trap. Whether it’s annexation or some other overt act, it’s rarely about what’s said. It’s about what’s left unsaid: the quiet deals, dependencies, and shifts that dismantle autonomy piece by piece. Sovereignty doesn’t vanish in a headline-grabbing moment; it dissolves in the shadows.
Stop chasing symptoms. Start dissecting the disease.
-
If one is on the table both are on the table, don't be stupid. They are following a well established playbook that utilizes both.
-
Trump is sticking a wrench into Canada's conservative party, I just hope it's enough
-
It's pre-November Gaza all over again
-
If one is on the table, both are on the table? That’s a lazy oversimplification. The “playbook” you’re referencing isn’t some universal cheat sheet—it’s a patchwork of tactics tailored to specific circumstances. Treating armed annexation and economic manipulation as interchangeable tools is reductive. They serve different purposes, with vastly different consequences.
You’re conflating methods with outcomes. Annexation is overt, designed to dominate visibly. Economic dependency is covert, engineered to erode sovereignty from within. The latter is far more insidious because it doesn’t provoke the same resistance. Stop pretending they’re two sides of the same coin—they’re not even in the same currency.
-
I truly believe it will be, if for no other reason than we're currently watching a preview from Trump on what will happen to us if PP is elected. And most of us don't want a wiff of that shit crossing the border.
-
I am not a Canadian, but may I humbly suggest that responding to asshole American right-wing attacks by being as rude as possible in French would be quite the patriotic response?
Throw down your English-speaking Canadian "sorry" chains and be rude like the Quebecois!
-
So your rebuttal to a nuanced argument is to toss out an insult and a link? Brilliant. Truly, the pinnacle of intellectual engagement. Did you even read the article you linked, or are you just hoping it does your thinking for you?
Economic instability is a factor, not a blueprint. Historical parallels require context, not cherry-picked fragments slapped onto unrelated situations. If you’re going to invoke history, at least try to grasp its complexity instead of wielding it like a blunt instrument.
Maybe next time, bring an actual argument instead of relying on lazy deflection and name-calling. It’s embarrassing for both of us.
