Jump to content

Donald Trump & Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am only here for entertainment, but would agree that it has no material impact to be concerned in any way. Anecdotally, Canadians expend far more energy on being concerned with the United States than vice-versa....Trudeau indirectly told us as much.

Democrats also benefit....this is the American (nationalist) way. It has worked for over 200 years. The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau actually invoked American nationalism and identity as "definitional" for Canadians. American foreign and domestic policies predate modern "terrorism" by several generations, as do several Canadian foreign interventions.

No, the "Nationalism" that I'm referring to is not of the 'border' limited type. Although this is nationalism, only if it is ALSO culturally biased to favor some ethnicity or group of ethnicities, is this a problem and not restricted to one's borders, but to some assumed 'people' in a genetic way.....like favoring Zionism, for instance, as Israel does. The type of "nationalism" you are including as "American" is more appropriately defined as "patriotism". While both Democrats and Republicans have the non-patriotic forms of Nationalists among them, it is to the Republican forms that foster the contemporary cults that already dominate, mostly 'white' ethnic related ones.

Your point of the fact that we have more interest in the U.S. should be a good point. It is hypocritical of you to presume American-dominant interest as a justification to ignore other countries because the U.S. ideal principles are then just 'right' for Americans but 'wrong' if you are not. At least the Democrats lack this form of hypocrisy in such clear extremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the "Nationalism" that I'm referring to is not of the 'border' limited type. Although this is nationalism, only if it is ALSO culturally biased to favor some ethnicity or group of ethnicities, is this a problem and not restricted to one's borders, but to some assumed 'people' in a genetic way.....like favoring Zionism, for instance, as Israel does. The type of "nationalism" you are including as "American" is more appropriately defined as "patriotism". While both Democrats and Republicans have the non-patriotic forms of Nationalists among them, it is to the Republican forms that foster the contemporary cults that already dominate, mostly 'white' ethnic related ones.

No, I would have to disagree that Republicans dominate for either, given the long and well documented U.S. history (political, economic, social, etc.). Trying to parse or separate the American "nationalism" experience in such a way does not pass the test of time. America's version of "Zionsm" was called "Manifest Destiny", which also fostered hemisphere dominance, rejection of further colonialism by European/Asian powers, and the total embrace of "nationalism".

Your point of the fact that we have more interest in the U.S. should be a good point. It is hypocritical of you to presume American-dominant interest as a justification to ignore other countries because the U.S. ideal principles are then just 'right' for Americans but 'wrong' if you are not. At least the Democrats lack this form of hypocrisy in such clear extremes.

I don't think the Democratic Party lacks extremes, as evidenced by protectionism and close affiliation with organized labour. The world's voluntary interest and fascination with American culture should not presume an equal reciprocal interest, especially given that millions of Americans and legal/illegal residents have come from all over the world with their culture in tow, only to be absorbed by The Borg. Pierre Trudeau invented the multiculturalism label for political expediency (Quebec separatism), but the Americans never had to manufacture a label for that which happened organically for mostly economic and political reasons. Trump wants to build (more) walls to keep illegals from streaming across the U.S. border, something that Democrats have already done.

The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau has visited the United States at least three times since taking office, and he has been quick to exploit American media opportunities. He has framed the CanAm relationship in a very direct and somewhat embarrassing way ("definitional"), at least for any "nationalist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I would have to disagree that Republicans dominate for either, given the long and well documented U.S. history (political, economic, social, etc.). Trying to parse or separate the American "nationalism" experience in such a way does not pass the test of time. America's version of "Zionsm" was called "Manifest Destiny", which also fostered hemisphere dominance, rejection of further colonialism by European/Asian powers, and the total embrace of "nationalism".

I don't think the Democratic Party lacks extremes, as evidenced by protectionism and close affiliation with organized labour. The world's voluntary interest and fascination with American culture should not presume an equal reciprocal interest, especially given that millions of Americans and legal/illegal residents have come from all over the world with their culture in tow, only to be absorbed by The Borg. Pierre Trudeau invented the multiculturalism label for political expediency (Quebec separatism), but the Americans never had to manufacture a label for that which happened organically for mostly economic and political reasons. Trump wants to build (more) walls to keep illegals from streaming across the U.S. border, something that Democrats have already done.

The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau has visited the United States at least three times since taking office, and he has been quick to exploit American media opportunities. He has framed the CanAm relationship in a very direct and somewhat embarrassing way ("definitional"), at least for any "nationalist".

I already recognize that Nationalists exist in all parties. See my thread "Why voting NDP is better..." as this expands on my concern to Nationalism but why it is still better to vote for a social democratic government for the best hope of defeating this tendency. The same goes with the Democrats and why I'd support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Minor distinction in politics within the same parties are often about nationalistic differences or differences in how to deal with those who believe in intervening using laws to favor certain group interests.

Many strict feminists would vote for Sanders because he'd support laws that grant exceptional interests based on a belief that there exists intrinsic cultural 'ownership' of people based on similar genetics. Here the class "women" are assumed by some as either all sharing in some genetic liability of which "men" as a whole class are assumed to be women's oppressors. While there IS true discrimination that occurs, this kind of "nationalism" is what I believe distinguishes a major difference between Hillary and Bernie.

But right-wingers most dominate those forms of Nationalisms that lack even more connection to reality. A 'feminist' type of conservative would often be like a Christian women's group who believe in the traditional means of women being submissive to men. This form of nationalism is worse as it defeats progressive society's liberal views with less of a real logical connection of some culture of 'women' or 'men' and their actual genetic nature of BEING women or men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But right-wingers most dominate those forms of Nationalisms that lack even more connection to reality. A 'feminist' type of conservative would often be like a Christian women's group who believe in the traditional means of women being submissive to men. This form of nationalism is worse as it defeats progressive society's liberal views with less of a real logical connection of some culture of 'women' or 'men' and their actual genetic nature of BEING women or men.

The United States has already lived and discussed this issue during several real world circumstances (e.g. Democrat Bill Clinton's sexual harrassment lawsuit and resulting impeachment). Logic did not apply as long as some political advantage can be obtained from the tactical inconsistency.

U.S. Democrats, except for the most socially progressive, would have a hard time even in Canada, as the party is still mostly right of the CPC.

Progressives have no inherent right to prevail in political or economic policy, and the presumption that they do is just another bias...same as Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States has already lived and discussed this issue during several real world circumstances (e.g. Democrat Bill Clinton's sexual harrassment lawsuit and resulting impeachment). Logic did not apply as long as some political advantage can be obtained from the tactical inconsistency.

U.S. Democrats, except for the most socially progressive, would have a hard time even in Canada, as the party is still mostly right of the CPC.

Progressives have no inherent right to prevail in political or economic policy, and the presumption that they do is just another bias...same as Republicans.

Here's an update, Clinton was not impeached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States has already lived and discussed this issue during several real world circumstances (e.g. Democrat Bill Clinton's sexual harrassment lawsuit and resulting impeachment). Logic did not apply as long as some political advantage can be obtained from the tactical inconsistency.

U.S. Democrats, except for the most socially progressive, would have a hard time even in Canada, as the party is still mostly right of the CPC.

Progressives have no inherent right to prevail in political or economic policy, and the presumption that they do is just another bias...same as Republicans.

This is the false stereotype of Canada here. We are not less conservative but more so in many ways. Cultural preservation through our Multiculturalism is of this kind. We are 'conservative' in still having an official 'royalty' and this entity alone is enough to demonstrate our more conservative ideals. "Progressives" simply refers to one opting to choose their present associations. That is, they opt to PROGRESS by adapting to changes. But it is NOT a means to utterly destroy traditions. Traditions through culture should be available to all to be permitted to 'choose'. But the conservatives to the nationalistic ideals with respect to trying to attempt to entrench laws for the sake of some single or set of ethnicities is highly discriminatory and dictotorial (commanding).

I like traditions to still exist. But progress should not require FORCING traditional ideals with respect to law. [your first amendment]

As to your own view, I think you as a conservative would at least likely favor the nationalism of the Old South where people of such inherent factors were intrinsically believed to 'own' or deserve their benefits even at the expense of those that are disfavored by them. And I'm guessing you'd thus favor this factor of our system to prefer laws that segregate laws for certain cultures or groups based on ethnic stereotypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....But the conservatives to the nationalistic ideals with respect to trying to attempt to entrench laws for the sake of some single or set of ethnicities is highly discriminatory and dictotorial (commanding).

Actually, Canada's Constitution Act(s) are full of such examples, made necessary to form a confederation. The discrimination continues to this day (e.g. language laws). Nationalism transcends political affiliation in the USA.

As to your own view, I think you as a conservative would at least likely favor the nationalism of the Old South where people of such inherent factors were intrinsically believed to 'own' or deserve their benefits even at the expense of those that are disfavored by them. And I'm guessing you'd thus favor this factor of our system to prefer laws that segregate laws for certain cultures or groups based on ethnic stereotypes.

I have no concern for how/what Canada chooses to do in that regard, being quite satisfied as a U.S. "nationalist" with the costs and rewards of my nation's history. Most Americans do not define themselves in "not-Canadian" terms. As The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau said, Canada is "consequential" to the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Canada's Constitution Act(s) are full of such examples, made necessary to form a confederation. The discrimination continues to this day (e.g. language laws). Nationalism transcends political affiliation in the USA.

Okay, I'm not in disagreement here. It is what I was pointing to is a strong 'conservative' ideal. Whether for some MONO-culture or some select MULTI-cultures, they are still the nationalisms that cause the problems within all parties and within all countries.

I have no concern for how/what Canada chooses to do in that regard, being quite satisfied as a U.S. "nationalist" with the costs and rewards of my nation's history. Most Americans do not define themselves in "not-Canadian" terms. As The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau said, Canada is "consequential" to the United States.

I'm one of those who does not define myself in not-American terms as I understand many do here. I promote the ideals of the U.S. origins and its intentional ideals for ALL people. But when YOU say that you are a "nationalist", are you not just referencing "patriotism" or are you more specifically extending this to a belief in specific ethnicities or traditions?

Are you Christian, for example, and one who believes that the 'true' American IS those who are Christian? Do you believe that the Mexicans coming into the U.S. in violation are all doing so as prior criminals of Mexico as opposed to being equally of those escaping a bad form of government? Do you defend an American abroad as requiring to be treated as though their American inheritance entitles them to exceptional laws even in places that oppose American ideals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm not in disagreement here. It is what I was pointing to is a strong 'conservative' ideal. Whether for some MONO-culture or some select MULTI-cultures, they are still the nationalisms that cause the problems within all parties and within all countries.

Getting back to Trump and his version of nationalism is the message he wants to bleat for a party nomination...a clumsier version of what Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Conservative or liberal, the model still works within a nationalist and political framework. Trudeau recognizes Trump's rhetoric as an explicit threat to the status quo CanAm relationship at several levels, injecting himself into a foreign election campaign against the advice of some.

I'm one of those who does not define myself in not-American terms as I understand many do here. I promote the ideals of the U.S. origins and its intentional ideals for ALL people. But when YOU say that you are a "nationalist", are you not just referencing "patriotism" or are you more specifically extending this to a belief in specific ethnicities or traditions?

Both....the United States is an amalgam of many social, political, and economic interests and has emerged as a global superpower. Competition and conflict either kills you or makes you stronger. Some Canadians dislike such conflict, preferring "peace, order, and good government". Trudeau admitted that this difference is real (and ultimately "boring") during a Bloomberg interview. Historically, the Americans were bastard rebels who refused to bow down to the Empire like loyalist toadies.

Are you Christian, for example, and one who believes that the 'true' American IS those who are Christian? Do you believe that the Mexicans coming into the U.S. in violation are all doing so as prior criminals of Mexico as opposed to being equally of those escaping a bad form of government? Do you defend an American abroad as requiring to be treated as though their American inheritance entitles them to exceptional laws even in places that oppose American ideals?

No to all of the above....a sovereign state should control its borders by definition. Americans abroad are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction they find themselves to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progressives have no inherent right to prevail in political or economic policy, and the presumption that they do is just another bias...same as Republicans.

Additional note from my previous post on this:

In a very real sense, yes, progressives do have an 'inherent' right in that progress is initiated in the present with people in the present and looks forward when considering the laws of its citizens.

Or perhaps you'd think we can dispense with government altogether as one extreme on the basis that something like the Bible is sufficient to govern us all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional note from my previous post on this:

In a very real sense, yes, progressives do have an 'inherent' right in that progress is initiated in the present with people in the present and looks forward when considering the laws of its citizens.

No...this is not the case and is highly presumptive. The social and economic stability of today would quickly fall apart without the contributing "dark side" and legitimate interests that resist progressive ideas.

Or perhaps you'd think we can dispense with government altogether as one extreme on the basis that something like the Bible is sufficient to govern us all?

Off topic....I don't even own a Bible...but I do have a copy of the Qu'ran from some guy at work....does that count ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to Trump and his version of nationalism is the message he wants to bleat for a party nomination...a clumsier version of what Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Conservative or liberal, the model still works within a nationalist and political framework. Trudeau recognizes Trump's rhetoric as an explicit threat to the status quo CanAm relationship at several levels, injecting himself into a foreign election campaign against the advice of some.

I like and respect Trump's personality and understand that he appears 'sincere' in his convictions. But it IS the rhetoric to which those most Nationalistic on the right appeal to of which others are most concerned with. Even his 'wall' is not necessarily intending to be realized should he have the chance to become President.

As to Trudeau, you know that the last meet of significant effort was his own father in the mid-seventies? (I was actually on the White House lawn at the meet but too young to make much sense of politics.)

Both....the United States is an amalgam of many social, political, and economic interests and has emerged as a global superpower. Competition and conflict either kills you or makes you stronger. Some Canadians dislike such conflict, preferring "peace, order, and good government". Trudeau admitted that this difference is real (and ultimately "boring") during a Bloomberg interview. Historically, the Americans were bastard rebels who refused to bow down to the Empire like loyalist toadies.

Yes, I agree to some of this. But you only kept in the optimistic points of 'competition'. Competition includes losers. And for many of us everywhere in Western Democracies, we forget that 'competition' isn't like playing a sport or some video game. If you lose in real life, you cannot actually play more than one life (or game).

No to all of the above....a sovereign state should control its borders by definition. Americans abroad are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction they find themselves to be in.

That's at least indicating you are more of a "patriot" of the American system and do not have the "nationalism" I'm referring to in this respect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like and respect Trump's personality and understand that he appears 'sincere' in his convictions. But it IS the rhetoric to which those most Nationalistic on the right appeal to of which others are most concerned with. Even his 'wall' is not necessarily intending to be realized should he have the chance to become President.

Trump's "wall" is both a rhetorical exercise and real barrier with existing U.S. border security construction. Trump did not invent the idea.

If you mean that a more general, isolationist and xenophobic America concerns other nationals, that is understandable but less relevant for domestic politics during party primary/caucus elections. A majority of U.S. voters want the borders secured and have for decades, even before 9/11.

Yes, I agree to some of this. But you only kept in the optimistic points of 'competition'. Competition includes losers. And for many of us everywhere in Western Democracies, we forget that 'competition' isn't like playing a sport or some video game. If you lose in real life, you cannot actually play more than one life (or game).

Winners and losers are explicitly part of competiton. I make no moral judgements about resulting outcomes. I leave that exercise to the Progressives...they are good at that.

That's at least indicating you are more of a "patriot" of the American system and do not have the "nationalism" I'm referring to in this respect.

American "patriots" can do a lot of international damage for "nationalism". That's why we get to watch NFL football games in a war zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...this is not the case and is highly presumptive. The social and economic stability of today would quickly fall apart without the contributing "dark side" and legitimate interests that resist progressive ideas.

Off topic....I don't even own a Bible...but I do have a copy of the Qu'ran from some guy at work....does that count ?

Progress also includes not obliterating culture unlike the same kind of disrespect that particular cultures have done time and again in the past.

Traditional cultures demand keeping what was or should be "dead and buried" alive. I can accept this in respect to treating all cultures and traditions owned by ALL, not some specific group. These don't need laws other than to those which respect the individual or the whole, not groups based on some ancestor's lifestyle.

If one expects they should own the benefits of culture but also demand outsiders not notice the faults, both of which are stereotypes, this is hypocritical.

I'm guessing you are more just favorable to the economic parts of conservatism, not any particular mono-cultural impositions by those most Capitalistically endowed?

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one expects they should own the benefits of culture but also demand outsiders not notice the faults, both of which are stereotypes, this is hypocritical.

I'm guessing you are more just favorable to the economic parts of conservatism, not any particular mono-cultural impositions by those most Capitalistically endowed?

Hypocrisy is not a crime....and is political reality. Trump hasn't responded to Trudeau (he doesn't have to or need to), but he could rip Canada's PM on past and present domestic and foreign policy. Hypocrisy is the least of their concerns...this is politics!

For this topic, I am only interested in the Trump brand of conservatism as corrupted and interpreted by Trudeau, Canada, and U.S. voters. Culture includes many things, including another unremarkable U.S. election cycle with heated rhetoric. No big deal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winners and losers are explicitly part of competiton. I make no moral judgements about resulting outcomes. I leave that exercise to the Progressives...they are good at that.

I'm not a progressive OF belief in some absolute morality to nature. But does my own intellectual Nihilism justify anything I should do with respect to laws? If I accept no moral means even simply created by our conventions (= through government), why should anybody even care to listen to anything anyone says?

I understand we are IN a dog-eat-dog world. But governments serve those intent to COMPETE with ideas to create laws (as forms of 'morals') and so this competition should include the means to fight for our opinions, even without the same standards that one's wealth or power provides them inherently. Progressives are often those prevented from the same standards going into life that the Conservatives enjoy by default. So you can argue that the Conservatives are more 'unfair' especially when they back their own illegitimate natural right of 'ownership' with highly remote Gods with their fixed morality imposed on us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a progressive OF belief in some absolute morality to nature. But does my own intellectual Nihilism justify anything I should do with respect to laws? If I accept no moral means even simply created by our conventions (= through government), why should anybody even care to listen to anything anyone says?

Agreed...many people don't care to listen to others. Their choice....their morality, or absence thereof. Trump embodies this anti-ethic, and it really conflicts with whatever Trudeau is selling from across the border.

I understand we are IN a dog-eat-dog world. But governments serve those intent to COMPETE with ideas to create laws (as forms of 'morals') and so this competition should include the means to fight for our opinions, even without the same standards that one's wealth or power provides them inherently. Progressives are often those prevented from the same standards going into life that the Conservatives enjoy by default. So you can argue that the Conservatives are more 'unfair' especially when they back their own illegitimate natural right of 'ownership' with highly remote Gods with their fixed morality imposed on us all.

Again...interesting but off topic. The practical impact is easily realized in the Trump-Trudeau difference when distilled to basic elements. The trump card (pun intended), is that Trudeau enjoyed the same privileged advantages, including his own "god".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed...many people don't care to listen to others. Their choice....their morality, or absence thereof. Trump embodies this anti-ethic, and it really conflicts with whatever Trudeau is selling from across the border.

Again...interesting but off topic. The practical impact is easily realized in the Trump-Trudeau difference when distilled to basic elements. The trump card (pun intended), is that Trudeau enjoyed the same privileged advantages, including his own "god".

Actually when you distill Trump down al you find is a privileged bigot riding on daddy's money. And you want him as president?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually when you distill Trump down al you find is a privileged bigot riding on daddy's money. And you want him as president?

If Trump gets the most electoral votes, then he gets to be president, no matter what I want. That's how it works.

Canadians get to watch.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump gets the most electoral votes, then he gets to be president, no matter what I want. That's how it works.

Canadians get to watch.

All right it seems you understand the electoral college. Hopefully for y'all they will fulfill their original duty and protect you from ignorant ballot casters and do the best for the country. However I doubt it comes to that, the GOP is already working to clean up the embarrassment Trump has brought to the party.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right it seems you understand the electoral college. Hopefully for y'all they will fulfill their original duty and protect you from ignorant ballot casters and do the best for the country. However I doubt it comes to that, the GOP is already working to clean up the embarrassment Trump has brought to the party.

Whatever....the Union has survived far worse. There will be an election....and there will be a new president in January 2017.

If it is Donald Trump, Trudeau will have to make nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...