bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Perhaps. But then it IS in our interest to prevent him from succeeding isn't it? Especially since his degree of interest is to be more Nationalistic and demanding walls to be built. The U.S. has already built walls on the Mexican border as a matter of public law. Nationalism for Trump would only increase from any overt efforts by Mexicans or Canadians to influence the presidential election. The campaign process will run its course, just as it always has, without regard to concerns across the northern or southern border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Mayers Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 The U.S. has already built walls on the Mexican border as a matter of public law. Nationalism for Trump would only increase from any overt efforts by Mexicans or Canadians to influence the presidential election. The campaign process will run its course, just as it always has, without regard to concerns across the northern or southern border. If we are damned if we do or damned if we don't to be concerned, then what does it matter for those like yourself to even be here? Trump would also still be bad for even the Americans in contrast to the Democrats regardless. Acts to promote more segregated nationalism only equally promotes more dissent AGAINST the U.S.. "Terrorism" is a direct result of nationalists with interests to conserve their power over others. AND they ARE the sincere "terrorists" because it is they who actually require those terrorists to justify their own acts of deliberate abuses to BE the actual 'terrorists' in disguise of opponents of them. Extremes beget extremes. Those like Trump (or right-wing politics in general) CAPITALIZE most opportunistically with clear divisiveness in terms of blacks-and-whites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 If we are damned if we do or damned if we don't to be concerned, then what does it matter for those like yourself to even be here? 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. Trump would also still be bad for even the Americans in contrast to the Democrats regardless. Acts to promote more segregated nationalism only equally promotes more dissent AGAINST the U.S.. "Terrorism" is a direct result of nationalists with interests to conserve their power over others. AND they ARE the sincere "terrorists" because it is they who actually require those terrorists to justify their own acts of deliberate abuses to BE the actual 'terrorists' in disguise of opponents of them. Extremes beget extremes. Those like Trump (or right-wing politics in general) CAPITALIZE most opportunistically with clear divisiveness in terms of blacks-and-whites. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Various English Canadian MSM journalists imply that Trudeau Jnr is akin to Obama - passing the torch (a term JFK used in reference to his birth in the 20th century, and in direct reference to Eisenhower, democracy and Berlin 1936). IMHO, the term "bromance" as the progressives now say, so modern, cool is perhaps more accurate. But in fact, I reckon that Trudeau Jnr is more like Donald Trump [Jnr. error] Why? Inheritance! Trump inherited his father's billions, Trump inherited his father's position. Furthermore..... Both have no actual political experience. Both are celebrities! Both love their celebrity status. Edited March 30, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) More difference: Trump is about hatred, racism, division and violence. JT is just the opposite. Funny how you completely ignored the most important aspects of both politicians. That's a matter of opinion, and from what angle you're looking. For one....Trudeau, taking cheap potshots at Trump even when no one is taking cheap potshots at him (Trudeau) - despite advise from former ambassadors.....is courting unnecessary trouble. He's putting Canada's best interest in jeopardy. For what? Meddling in someone else's politics. I wouldn't call that a peace-loving disposition, let alone being diplomatic. Edited March 30, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) That's a matter of opinion, and from what angle you're looking. For one....Trudeau, taking cheap potshots at Trump even when no one is taking cheap potshots at him (Trudeau) - despite advise from former ambassadors.....is courting unnecessary trouble. He's putting Canada's best interest in jeopardy. For what? Meddling in someone else's politics. I wouldn't call that a peace-loving disposition, let alone being diplomatic. I think it is important for world leaders to call out the divisive, bigoted hate being spread by the buffoons vying for the Republican ticket. Anything that counters the idea that, this sort of lunacy is just tough talk that America needs, is useful. Edited March 30, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I think it is important for world leaders to call out the divisive, bigoted hate being spread by the buffoons vying for the Republican ticket. Anything that counters the idea that, this sort of lunacy is just tough talk that America needs, is useful. That's what you think. Furthermore, how you interpret bigoted and divisive....is questionable. That's political correctness speaking. If you really want unbias look into bigotry and and divisiveness - question how many Christian Syrian refugees have been admitted to Canada, in comparison to Muslims. McCallum refused to give an answer despite a journalist's persistent proddings. Why wouldn't he say? So please....spare me the rhetorics about tolerance, bigotry and divisiveness. It's all a sham....conveniently used when suited. Yours is simply your own opinion. Diplomatic relations - I prefer to listen to ambassadors. Btw, world leaders stopped giving any comment about Trump, after Trump started gaining momentum. I wonder about the proposed ban of Trump in the UK. Suddenly, all is quiet in their Parliament. Edited March 30, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Yeah, I figured you had nothing. I would argue that isn't exactly "fomenting hatred" on the level of Donald Trump, but I would have to kill a few brain cells to even try. Labelling someone as "bigoted," is. Just look at the amount of hatred being spewed on anyone labelled as "bigoted." It's bad enough that some folks in the US resort to bullying (by trying to prevent people from listening to Trump in his rallies), and denying Trump the same rights to speak that's given to all other candidates - and here come someone from another country, labelling Trump. That's like throwing gasoline to sparks of flame. Who's helping to squash free speech? Free choice? Who's enabling the bullies who wants to deny and who want to dictate to people what or who they ought not to listen to? Who's behaving like a dictator? Is this just a coincidence why China's regime is so admired? What's the difference with Russian going in another country and trying to arouse and incite the people of that nation? Only trouble-rousers do that! Who's looking like a busy-body? Who's looking like someone who can't even manage to control his own mouth? Is this a pathetic way to get more attention? Are we that desperate? Fresh from the heady bromance with Obama - and all the accolades - gee, the champagne bubbles must've gotten to our heads!And the lips couldn't stop from flapping. Really? Some would call this as being a loose cannon. Edited March 30, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 That's a matter of opinion, and from what angle you're looking. For one....Trudeau, taking cheap potshots at Trump even when no one is taking cheap potshots at him (Trudeau) - despite advise from former ambassadors.....is courting unnecessary trouble. He's putting Canada's best interest in jeopardy. For what? Meddling in someone else's politics. I wouldn't call that a peace-loving disposition, let alone being diplomatic. What cheap shots are those? Please be specific and provide citations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) What cheap shots are those? Please be specific and provide citations. Justin Trudeau takes on Donald Trump During the Maclean’s Town Hall, Justin Trudeau served up some strong political jabs against Donald Trump. Here’s why that’s a risky game. That was one thunderous “however.” Having acknowledged the importance of keeping his oar out of foreign election campaigns, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled with that word he was dropping the fig leaf of impartiality, and promptly took a swipe at U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump. “I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone that I stand firmly against the politics of division, the politics of fear, the politics of intolerance or hateful rhetoric,” Trudeau said during a live, year-end town hall hosted by Maclean’s. “If we allow politicians to succeed by scaring people, we don’t actually end up any safer. Fear doesn’t make us safer. It makes us weaker.” His spinners will no doubt characterize his remarks as abstract observations. But there was no mistaking where Trudeau was going. Judging by the favourable coverage Trudeau’s election has been getting in the U.S. press—where his “sunny ways” are offered as an alternative to cynical American politics—his words won’t pass unnoticed. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-takes-on-donald-trump/ Edited March 30, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 Cheap shot? He sounded quite reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 He just said he doesn't like the politics of division. If Trump doesn't practice divisive politics, then that statement has nothing to do with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau is just doing what some Canadian politicians have always done....invoke the American experience for domestic political gain. Nothing new about attacking Trump from across the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotary Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 That's what you think. Furthermore, how you interpret bigoted and divisive....is questionable. That's political correctness speaking. If you really want unbias look into bigotry and and divisiveness - question how many Christian Syrian refugees have been admitted to Canada, in comparison to Muslims. McCallum refused to give an answer despite a journalist's persistent proddings. Why wouldn't he say? So please....spare me the rhetorics about tolerance, bigotry and divisiveness. It's all a sham....conveniently used when suited. Yours is simply your own opinion. Diplomatic relations - I prefer to listen to ambassadors. Btw, world leaders stopped giving any comment about Trump, after Trump started gaining momentum. I wonder about the proposed ban of Trump in the UK. Suddenly, all is quiet in their Parliament. It's all quiet in the UK parliament because the ban Trump issue was never meant to actually be put forth, but simply to underscore the disgust for his comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) It's all quiet in the UK parliament because the ban Trump issue was never meant to actually be put forth, but simply to underscore the disgust for his comments. The point is: the moment he started surging in the polls - hyperventillating drama queens realized the stupidity of such proposal. Common sense, finally, kicked in. Competent world leaders had zipped their mouths, and await the result of the election. Edited March 31, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 The point is: the moment he started surging in the polls - hyperventillating drama queens realized the stupidity of such proposal. You should try making your points without calling people names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotary Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 The point is: the moment he started surging in the polls - hyperventillating drama queens realized the stupidity of such proposal. Common sense, finally, kicked in. Competent world leaders had zipped their mouths, and await the result of the election. What's all that got to do with what we were talking about, namely the UK parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) What's all that got to do with what we were talking about, namely the UK parliament. Big-time. Weren't they the ones who did the knee-jerk ban proposal? What are they saying now? All that bluster - why be quiet now? What has changed from Trump regarding the temporary Muslim ban? Edited March 31, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotary Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Big-time. Weren't they the ones who did the knee-jerk ban proposal? What are they saying now? All that bluster - why be quiet now? What has changed from Trump regarding the temporary Muslim ban? As was already explained, it was never meant to be actually brought into law. But the going through the motions brought a lot of attention to the bigotry Trump had displayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) As was already explained, it was never meant to be actually brought into law. But the going through the motions brought a lot of attention to the bigotry Trump had displayed. Whether it was meant to be or not....they sounded off with thoughtless bravado! But when they saw him surging, they'd decided to put a lid on it! They realized how ridiculous to have the President of the USA banned from entering the UK! They're supposed to be allies! Edited March 31, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotary Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Whether it was meant to be or not....they sounded off with thoughtless bravado! But when they saw him surging, they'd decided to put a lid on it! They realized how ridiculous to have the President of the USA banned from entering the UK! They're supposed to be allies! They put a "lid" on it because they has made their point and had zilch to do with his poll numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 They put a "lid" on it because they has made their point and had zilch to do with his poll numbers. Did they explain that to you? Where did you get that info? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotary Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Did they explain that to you? Where did you get that info? From an interview on the BBC back when the issue had been discussed in parliament, then laid to rest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 From an interview on the BBC back when the issue had been discussed in parliament, then laid to rest Here's what I found: The unconventional debate is unlikely to result in any practical move by Parliament. No vote will be held at the end of the debate, and politicians are expected to treat it more as an opportunity to air their views on the divisive Republican under the protection of parliamentary privilege, which legally shields them from accusations of defamation or slander. Another lawmaker, Philip Davies, stood to say he thought Trump's approach was smart. "In the race to become the next president, he's been gaining support with a political manner that can be described as blunt directness," Davies said. "He is definitely straight-talking, and as a Yorkshireman I certainly applaud him for that, too. In fact, I think in this country we could do with rather less political correctness and much more straight-talking across the board, and I think many of our constituents would agree." Members of Parliament will also debate a counter-petition that calls for Trump not to be banned from the country. "Leave the decision making on appropriate responses to the Americans. (Let's) mind our own business," reads the petition, launched by David Gladwin, which has received more than 40,000 signatures. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotary Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I guess when you have an ally such as the UK debating whether or not to ban you from entering the country, you've accomplished "something" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.