Trump Carney: First Oval Meeting

[August1991]

I would like to be a fly on the wall to witness this.

1. Trump will look Carney directly in the eye and say: "I am the reason you are here." Make no mistake, Trump made Carney Canada's PM. And Trump knows it. Canadian voters fell for Trump's gambit.

2. In America, Trump is a developer who worked in New York real estate, a showman who now gets vote from ordinary, working Americans: He stands up for America. Carney supposedly stood up for Canada! Except Carney worked for Goldman-Sachs and has lived abroad for most of his life.

3. Trump has been through the wringer - we know too much about the guy. No one knows anything about Carney.  

[August1991]

Corrected: Canadian voters "in urban Canada and suburban Montreal" fell for Trump's gambit.

[herbie]

Congratulations due? | The West Coast Fliar

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

I would like to be a fly on the wall to witness this.

1. Trump will look Carney directly in the eye and say: "I am the reason you are here." Make no mistake, Trump made Carney Canada's PM. And Trump knows it. Canadian voters fell for Trump's gambit.

2. In America, Trump is a developer who worked in New York real estate, a showman who now gets vote from ordinary, working Americans: He stands up for America. Carney supposedly stood up for Canada! Except Carney worked for Goldman-Sachs and has lived abroad for most of his life.

3. Trump has been through the wringer - we know too much about the guy. No one knows anything about Carney.  

There's no doubt that trump expects to get what he wants out of Kearney during the negotiations. Kearney won't be interested in standing up for Canada, he will be interested in structuring this in such a way that it looks like he stood up for Canada even though he didn't.

We'll see what kind of deal we get. Trump is in trouble with his tariffs already so he's been talking about backing off on some of them or at least reducing them. Kearney can pretend that he got those as concessions from trump and make himself look good

[SpankyMcFarland]

I support any PM of ours who has to deal with such a disgraceful person.  

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I support any PM of ours who has to deal with such a disgraceful person.  

Agreed. 

Only prejudice would cause you to think that a PM naturally wouldn't want to help.

I don't like Poilievre but I would absolutely trust him to try his best in a negotiation.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I support any PM of ours who has to deal with such a disgraceful person.  

So if Poilievre was dealing with the guy you'd support him? Sounds unlikely.

If we get a worse deal and our people suffer for it will you support him then?

Is what you're really saying that no matter what you think that carney should be prime minister and the conservatives should never be allowed to so whatever carney does will be great with you no matter how he performs?

Don't you think what you should be saying is that you support any prime minister that gets results? Or are results the least important thing for you?

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So if Poilievre was dealing with the guy you'd support him? Sounds unlikely.

Of course I would support Poilievre if he was down there. When our PM is dealing with a dangerous foreign adversary who has threatened our sovereignty we have to play as one team. 

A Tory win wouldn’t have made much difference to my life other than maybe lowering my taxes over the longer term. Poilievre behaved like a normal Canadian politician in this election and accepted the result. 
 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Of course I would support Poilievre if he was down there. When our PM is dealing with a dangerous foreign adversary who has threatened our sovereignty we have to play as one team. 

A Tory win wouldn’t have made much difference to my life other than maybe lowering my taxes over the longer term. Poilievre behaved like a normal Canadian politician in this election and accepted the result. 
 

I noticed you didn't answer any of the other questions   

I believe you might Hope that Poilievre came back with a good deal because why wouldn't you but I don't know how much you would support him other than that. And he came back with a bad deal I suspect you would probably pipe up about it and that doesn't sound like something you'll be doing with Carney

I think you're going to find that what's happening with the liberals will affect you more than you think. And probably already does and you don't even realize it. The food you buy is more expensive. If you have any children or family that's younger than 50 there situation in life is getting worse as a result of what the liberals have done in the last 10 years. What happens with international trade and our economy over the next couple of years is going to be generational

The older generation got this country and relatively good shape, and has a duty of care to pass it on in relatively good shape. We are currently failing in that duty. That has to matter to us, we can't just sit back and say Canada doesn't matter and we have no duty or responsibility to this country. If we've come to that point Then we're not just failures as a country, we're failures as people. So it has to matter

[SpankyMcFarland]

Quote

Is what you're really saying that no matter what you think that carney should be prime minister and the conservatives should never be allowed to so whatever carney does will be great with you no matter how he performs?

Of course not. 

 

 

Quote

Don't you think what you should be saying is that you support any prime minister that gets results? Or are results the least important thing for you?

I would support Canada’s PM in any foreign mission, esp. one as important as this. Of course, I hope for the best result possible for our country. 
 

 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Of course not. 

🙏👍❤️

 

Obviously.

 

Some people don't believe that objectivity and open mindedness are possible.  I suspect that they're just not used to compromising.

[Barquentine]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed. 

Only prejudice would cause you to think that a PM naturally wouldn't want to help.

But the right-wingers would rather nurse their hate and grievances than hope for the country to do well.

[herbie]

I only regret it wasn't Singh wagging a huge pink turban in his face the whole time. Mr Carney appoint Jagmeet Trade Ambassador and insist he wear traditional Sikh dress to the White House!

[Barquentine]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is what you're really saying that no matter what you think that carney should be prime minister and the conservatives should never be allowed to so whatever carney does will be great with you no matter how he performs?

After unraveling your twisted syntax I can tell you he said nothing of the kind.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Of course not. 

 

Your support sounded pretty unconditional

 

Quote

I would support Canada’s PM in any foreign mission, esp. one as important as this. Of course, I hope for the best result possible for our country. 

And if we don't get it? What then?

55 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

After unraveling your twisted syntax I can tell you he said nothing of the kind.

You can't tell me what basic math is   

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

But the right-wingers would rather nurse their hate and grievances than hope for the country to do well.

Dude all you do here is about hate and anger. The right Wingers aren't the problem

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, herbie said:

I only regret it wasn't Singh wagging a huge pink turban in his face the whole time. Mr Carney appoint Jagmeet Trade Ambassador and insist he wear traditional Sikh dress to the White House!

While I will concede to the absolute hilarity of the image, I'm not convinced that would help negotiations  

 

[herbie]

How can you seriously negotiate with someone who illegally violated the very trade agreement he bragged about his last term?
Sit directly across from him so Donald has to constantly see the turban. Fiddle with his beard and leap up whip out a plastic kirpan if Vance insults his clothes.
 

[August1991]

On 4/30/2025 at 11:16 PM, herbie said:

How can you seriously negotiate with someone who illegally violated the very trade agreement he bragged about his last term?
...

Apparently, some Canadians prefer to hire someone who worked for Goldman-Sachs.

====

I suspect that Canada is a work in progress.

[August1991]

We know nothing about our minority PM - other than his signature on our money.

We know nothing about his wife.

 

[Aristides]

On 5/1/2025 at 8:37 PM, August1991 said:

We know nothing about our minority PM - other than his signature on our money.

We know nothing about his wife.

 

Carney and PP are both unknowns but for different reasons.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Here’s a perfectly reasonable statement from Stephen Harper. Let’s all remember who we are playing for. 

 

Quote

Yesterday’s federal election was the 45th in the proud history of Canada’s democracy.    I want to extend my sincere congratulations to Prime Minister Carney on the results his party achieved. I wish him, and the government he will lead, success as they navigate our country forward during these challenging times. I also want to congratulate Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada on making significant gains, both in seats and popular vote, and bringing an entire new generation of Canadians to the Conservative Party.   To all candidates, campaign volunteers and election workers who participated in this election: thank you for your contribution to our democratic process, one that so many brave Canadians have sacrificed so much to defend. Their legacy is the proud and independent country we must always serve and protect. The True North, Strong and Free.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Here’s a perfectly reasonable statement from Stephen Harper. Let’s all remember who we are playing for. 

 

 

There is zero chance of any liberal ever thinking that way when Poilievre wins. It's kind of hard to swallow knowing that when people like you call for that kind of thing now. Nobody was graceful in harper won, Nobody said we should all come together. If anything the opposition parties vowed to bring him down as soon as possible and somebody paid for ads to be put up that he eats babies in the Toronto subway system

Why is it that whenever the liberals win they demand that other people take the high road and think of the country, and whenever they lose they're all about bitterness anger and Vengeance? Do you see the problem here?

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There is zero chance of any liberal ever thinking that way when Poilievre wins. It's kind of hard to swallow knowing that when people like you call for that kind of thing now. Nobody was graceful in harper won, Nobody said we should all come together. If anything the opposition parties vowed to bring him down as soon as possible and somebody paid for ads to be put up that he eats babies in the Toronto subway system

Why is it that whenever the liberals win they demand that other people take the high road and think of the country, and whenever they lose they're all about bitterness anger and Vengeance? Do you see the problem here?

Why not set a better example? 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Why not set a better example? 

Because we're sick and tired of setting the better example and nothing ever comes of it. So what you get is one side plays by the rules and the other side just ignores the rules. What's in it for us to play by the rules if nobody else will?

Here's an example. During harper's time in power he noticed that a lot of the judge appointments have been partisan. Rather than make partisan appointments himself he sat down with all parties involved and came up with an absolutely innovative model to pick judges that included members of all parties in the form of a committee, some existing judges to give there two bits and some police officers who could share insight as well. 

Is it completely non-partisan balanced approach That helped put an end to the partisan hiring of judges and made sure that hiring was based on merit and was balanced and fair, not tilted to one side or the other.

So all the judges hired under his time were nonpartisan.

The moment Trudeau got into power he threw that right out the window, canceled everything and went right back to a pointing partisan judges. It was also the last thing he did when he left office was to a point a whole bunch of judges in a partisan fashion and picked those who would lean to the liberal viewpoint.

So what did we get? What benefit did we get playing by the rules and leading by example? If anything we've got a court full of judges who are partisan and are basically political activists, we got Real extra approval from the people, and all that time and energy that went into setting up a perfect system that was fair and balanced was a complete waste

So wouldn't we be far better off next time to just make sure we're appointing partisan judges? Find judges that lean as far to the right as humanly possible and appoint them? I mean sure, it'll wind up giving us the problems we see in the states with the supreme court eventually but if we're smart about it we can take over the courts and we can ignore what's fair or reasonable.

Why wouldn't we? The liberals do. Showing by example how to do things better didn't help.

[suds]

Politics sucks.