Should Canada suspend relations with China?

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

That's not how the office of Prime Minister works, Trudeau is not King, he can't order people around like that.   It's not an official delegation, they're traveling as private citizens,  there's no Oval Office in Canada, Prime Ministers can't just go around denying people exit from Canada with no legal basis.

Actually the PM can kick MP’s out of caucus.  It would be considered irresponsible and undermining for an MP to work at cross purposes with the government’s policies. Not all votes are open. Some are whipped.  MP’s must support the country’s foreign policy. 

[GostHacked]

6 minutes ago, montgomery said:

What could any Canadian have against Chinese people buying land in Canada. They're wonderful immigrants and usuallly excel in anything they do. 

And why would China want outsiders to buy land in China when they already have a billion and a half people.

Does your objection have something to do with racial differences? 

I have an objection with your attempt to make it about race.  One can buy land without moving there while you just proved my point about reciprocity.

[montgomery]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Bottom line, people who are waiting for a Canadian Prime Minister to act tough, talk tough, or take any hard line at all, with either of the two global military and economic superpowers, simply have an inflated sense of Canada's importance and leverage, and so should not hold their breath.

It's nothing but hate politics for the Liberals and Trudeau. And a lack of understanding by Conservatives that we don't need to jump into kneejerk reactions at US demand. Nor do we need to irritate their psychopath president unduly. The US doesn't operate on a basis of fairness, they only believe that their military might makes right.

I think you have potential Dougie!

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Actually the PM can kick MP’s out of caucus.

And that is basically his only leverage, and as it is a PM's only leverage, should be reserved for when they really need it rather than for this.

[montgomery]

6 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I have an objection with your attempt to make it about race.  One can buy land without moving there while you just proved my point about reciprocity.

When I interpret such nonsense as racism I'm nearly always right. When I hear it coming out of an American from their south, I'm spot on every time. But I do admit that you may want to buy land in China! 

Edited January 7, 2019 by montgomery

[GostHacked]

2 minutes ago, montgomery said:

When I interpret such nonsense as racism I'm nearly always right. When I hear it coming out of an American from their south, I'm spot on every time. But I do admit that you may want to buy land in China! 

Purposefully misrepresenting my statement is nothing but trolling.

[Dougie93]

The reality is, absent the asymmetrical use of nuclear weapons, the United States is the only country with the leverage to stand up to China, because the EU is not a country, and Russia, while heavily armed, is an economic pipsqueak.

[montgomery]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Purposefully misrepresenting my statement is nothing but trolling.

It's my impression based on a lot of experience with Americans. And too, I've said that I can imagine you being the exception who needs to buy land in China. The Americans have become proud racists under the Trump regime. And then your accusation of trolling? Well, you know that's a no-no already don't you. I would suggest you don't do it again.

I think I'll end it right there gosthacked, before it gets out of hand.

[montgomery]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

The reality is, absent the asymmetrical use of nuclear weapons, the United States is the only country with the leverage to stand up to China, because the EU is not a country, and Russia, while heavily armed, is an economic pipsqueak.

That's quite unbelievable Dougie! Now you're matching up nuclear powers against each other! 

And of course Russia, China, or any of the other superpowers all have ability to stand up against the US and turn their big cities into glass parking lots overnight.

I'm appalled at the way you seem to be entertaining the idea of nuclear war by the US against China!!

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, montgomery said:

It's nothing but hate politics for the Liberals and Trudeau. And a lack of understanding by Conservatives that we don't need to jump into kneejerk reactions at US demand. Nor do we need to irritate their psychopath president unduly. The US doesn't operate on a basis of fairness, they only believe that their military might makes right.

I think you have potential Dougie!

Well, folks these days like to say "America is no longer the leader of the free world!",  which, if that is the case,  they should prepare themselves to start sucking some Chinese dick, because absent the Leader of the Free World, China can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, that's how big they are now.

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, montgomery said:

That's quite unbelievable Dougie! Now you're matching up nuclear powers against each other! 

And of course Russia, China, or any of the other superpowers all have ability to stand up against the US and turn their big cities into glass parking lots overnight.

I'm appalled at the way you seem to be entertaining the idea of nuclear war by the US against China!!

I included the caveat of asymmetrical nuclear weapons as a nod to India, because India is actually China's primary adversary, so in extremis, India could give the Chinese pause by those means.

[montgomery]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Well, folks these days like to say "America is no longer the leader of the free world!",  which, if that is the case,  they should prepare themselves to start sucking some Chinese dick, because absent the Leader of the Free World, China can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, that's how big they are now.

I'm very interested in pursuing the topic but I can't do so in that inappropriate manner. Maybe I'll get back to you tomorrow Dougie.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind though, I don't think we're there yet, but if we are in fact witnessing the break up of Chimerica, then yes, that would mean we are going to back to cold war, with all that that entails, to include realpoiltik by two stage fission-fusion tritium boosted critical mass.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, montgomery said:

It's my impression based on a lot of experience with Americans. And too, I've said that I can imagine you being the exception who needs to buy land in China. The Americans have become proud racists under the Trump regime. And then your accusation of trolling? Well, you know that's a no-no already don't you. I would suggest you don't do it again.

I think I'll end it right there gosthacked, before it gets out of hand.

Considering you have no idea what my stance is, or even if I am American, then yes you better end it right there.

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

China does not represent peace OR legitimate trade relations. Canada does not get the same reciprocity from China, they can buy land, but we cannot. That kind of thing. China is a huge threat via cyber threats and they are a huge thief of intellectual property on a global scale.

You can't have a rational discussion or debate with him. (I'm assuming gender here because the poster doesn't identify one.) He refuses to even acknowledge your argument about reciprocity, nor China's approach to intellectual property. He just argues emotion and insinuates racist motives and counters that the Chinese are wonderful immigrants and property owners, as if this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the current diplomatic dispute between Canada and China.

[montgomery]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I included the caveat of asymmetrical nuclear weapons as a nod to India, because India is actually China's primary adversary, so in extremis, India could give the Chinese pause by those means.

Wrong again Dougie! The latest news is that China and India are now cooperating militarily because they both have common interests in a strong defense against US aggression. Ask me about it Dougie and if I find time from other more important matters then I can fill you in.

[montgomery]

6 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You can't have a rational discussion or debate with him. (I'm assuming gender here because the poster doesn't identify one.) He refuses to even acknowledge your argument about reciprocity, nor China's approach to intellectual property. He just argues emotion and insinuates racist motives and counters that the Chinese are wonderful immigrants and property owners, as if this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the current diplomatic dispute between Canada and China.

Be very careful on how and when you refer to me. 

Quote

You can't have a rational discussion or debate with him. (I'm assuming gender here because the poster doesn't identify one.)

How am I ever going to get it through to you that personal attacks are out of bounds??

Maybe all I need to say for now is that the US is the pariah nation which is the world's leading war criminal aggressor, not just militarily but in all other matters too. China's only crime and by far the biggest concern of the US is in becoming the match of the US on economic clout and at least powerful enough militarily to stop US aggression throughout the world, dead in it's tracks!!

Edited January 7, 2019 by montgomery

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Wrong again Dougie! The latest news is that China and India are now cooperating militarily because they both have common interests in a strong defense against US aggression. Ask me about it Dougie and if I find time from other more important matters then I can fill you in.

Obvious nonsense is obvious, as the Americans are in fact aggressively selling military hardware to India right now, to include top of the line equipment like P-8 Poseidon MPA's and Apache attack helicopters.

[turningrite]

59 minutes ago, montgomery said:

1.) Be very careful on how and when you refer to me. 

2.) How am I ever going to get it through to you that personal attacks are out of bounds??

3.) Maybe all I need to say for now is that the US is the pariah nation which is the world's leading war criminal aggressor, not just militarily but in all other matters too. China's only crime and by far the biggest concern of the US is in becoming the match of the US on economic clout and at least powerful enough militarily to stop US aggression throughout the world, dead in it's tracks!!

1.) How very threatening of you. (Charming!) Are you, by the way, cisgender or transgender - if assuming that you're male is so apparently offensive to you? Please advise of the appropriate pronoun(s) other posters might use when referring to you. That would be considerate on your part.

2.) I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to and supporting a post by GostHacked, so I'll leave it to him to decide whether he thinks it appropriate, or otherwise.

3.) That's just tripe. China's role in Tibet and Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine illustrate that the other major powers have also been accused of abusing their military power and might. The U.S., like China and Russia, refuses to acknowledge the applicability of international law where its own actions and behavior are concerned. America's behavior has not always been perfect - far from it - but it is often expected by much of the world to function in a policing role. Did you watch (Egyptian president) el-Sisi's interview on 60 Minutes yesterday evening? He specifically noted and affirmed the policing role the U.S. serves in international affairs. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism and the influence of its "military-industrial complex" have led the U.S. into disastrous conflicts, like Vietnam and the second Iraq war. On balance, though, I think the U.S. has done more good than harm in the world. And the U.S., a democracy, has the capacity for introspection, rendering it able to acknowledge its mistakes, even if sometimes only after the fact, a trait not generally replicated by the other powers.

Edited January 7, 2019 by turningrite

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

That's not how the office of Prime Minister works, Trudeau is not King, he can't order people around like that.   It's not an official delegation, they're traveling as private citizens,  there's no Oval Office in Canada, Prime Ministers can't just go around denying people exit from Canada with no legal basis.

If any of them are Liberal MPs he certainly can. 

[montgomery]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) How very threatening of you. (Charming!) Are you, by the way, cisgender or transgender - if assuming that you're male is so apparently offensive to you? Please advise of the appropriate pronoun(s) other posters might use when referring to you. That would be considerate on your part.

2.) I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to and supporting a post by GostHacked, so I'll leave it to him to decide whether he thinks it appropriate, or otherwise.

3.) That's just tripe. China's role in Tibet and Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine illustrate that the other major powers have also been accused of abusing their military power and might. The U.S., like China and Russia, refuses to acknowledge the applicability of international law where its own actions and behavior are concerned. America's behavior has not always been perfect - far from it - but it is often expected by much of the world to function in a policing role. Did you watch (Egyptian president) el-Sisi's interview on 60 Minutes yesterday evening? He specifically noted and affirmed the policing role the U.S. serves in international affairs. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism and the influence of its "military-industrial complex" have led the U.S. into disastrous conflicts, like Vietnam and the second Iraq war. On balance, though, I think the U.S. has done more good than harm in the world. And the U.S., a democracy, has the capacity for introspection, rendering it able to acknowledge its mistakes, even if sometimes only after the fact, a trait not generally replicated by the other powers.

Russia isn't being aggressive in the Ukraine. Russia is defending it's borders now in the same way Russia had to during the Cold War, against Nato encroahment. And the people of the Ukraine voted over 90% in a referendum to stay with Russia. 

The US played the same gave but never did get consent from the people in the way Russia did. Russia just played the Nato game back on Nato. 

40 US wars of aggression since WW2 alone! We should keep the topic alive for the conservative zombies who haven't quite got the picture yet. I trust you have by the way you've been commenting on it!

[Dougie93]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

If any of them are Liberal MPs he certainly can. 

Only if they are in Cabinet, the Prime Minister is the Queen's executive, the position of Liberal party leader is not an executive position, and if a Prime Minister starts trying to strong arm MP's, they'll just cross the floor to the Tories, so any threats of consequences he would make would be empty.

[Dougie93]

I love how I'm the "Fake Canadian" while the supposedly real Canadians around here don't even understand how their beloved federal government works, the PM has no authority but Parliamentary Supremacy, the MP's don't need him, he needs the MP's, they could take him down in a matter of minutes.

[Dougie93]

In fact, that's what they should do, because Zoolander is already yielding diminishing returns and getting on the public's nerves, now would be a good time to get rid of him, lefties ain't voting for Sheer and the Cat in the Hat is no threat to them, they should replace the Little Dauphin with an adult in the room.

The biggest mistake Canadian parties make is sticking with the same leader for too long, leading to them being annihilated in the end, that's not how a Westminster Parliament works, they should change leaders early and often, now that most of the electorate is locked in to their ideological camps with nowhere else to go. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

42 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In fact, that's what they should do, because Zoolander is already yielding diminishing returns and getting on the public's nerves, now would be a good time to get rid of him, lefties ain't voting for Sheer and the Cat in the Hat is no threat to them, they should replace the Little Dauphin with an adult in the room.

The biggest mistake Canadian parties make is sticking with the same leader for too long, leading to them being annihilated in the end, that's not how a Westminster Parliament works, they should change leaders early and often, now that most of the electorate is locked in to their ideological camps with nowhere else to go. 

Canadian parliamentary democracy is alive and well and not veering into fascism.  Worry more about what’s happening in the US where the tension is palpable, and hope you get more responsible leadership that doesn’t blow everything up, good or bad, just because it came from the other side.  I want to see decency return to American leadership, but I’m not counting on it.