Why Are We Doing This U.S. Vs. Canada Thing?

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

Which one of us wants to get rid of Canada? 

I never said that.  Read my posts.  However, if Canada continues down its silly radically progressive path and sabotages its resource sector and economy through bureaucracy, that’s on our governments, no one else’s.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, paxamericana said:

It’s reactionary , the resentment to Canada own inaptitude. Most choose denial over truth. 

Canada has so much potential.  It went through a slump, as all countries go through rough periods.  Carney actually hit all the right notes in his Davos speech today by being honest about what ails us — well most of it.  I don’t think he has called out the negative impacts of the shaming of Canada as “settler colonial” under Trudeau. Culturally the country needs a revival.

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If you don’t like being Canadian there is a simpler solution.  

Yeah, get rid of you liberal bastards and make the country decent agai  

[SpankyMcFarland]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I never said that.  Read my posts.  However, if Canada continues down its silly radically progressive path and sabotages its resource sector and economy through bureaucracy, that’s on our governments, no one else’s.

Do you live near Toronto yourself? Do you own a house there?

As a radical leftist Marxist I made a great living in this country working in remote locations and doing jobs Canadians were simply not prepared to do. 

 

Edited January 21 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Do you live near Toronto yourself? Do you own a house there?

As a radical leftist Marxist I made a great living in this country working in remote locations and doing jobs Canadians were simply not prepared to do. 

 

You're not a Canadian?

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You're not a Canadian?

Not originally, as an immigrant. I started with a visa. 

I don’t blame governments or other people for my problems. If the Tories get in, fine, I’ll carry on and do just as well. 

Edited January 22 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

In many countries large cities are very expensive to buy in now. Nobody is born with a right to afford property there. The pioneers who built this country didn’t imagine they’d all end up in such places. 

Edited January 22 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Trump just keeps on behaving somewhere between a ten year old and Tony Soprano, referring to Governor Carney and how we should be grateful in Canada. I’m not sure how we can negotiate a trade deal with a person who doesn’t respect our institutions or even our country. 

[paxamericana]

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

negotiate a trade deal with a person who doesn’t respect our institutions or even our country

Canada disrespected it self freeriding on the American people. We subsidized global trade and trade in NAFTA. What, you think free trade is a right so you can spend nothing on defense and use it for your free healthcare? Yeah tell me all about that when you drop your inter provincial trade barrier. 51st was your best deal on the table. And here's the kicker, as soon as all the small countries start arming up from American global withdraw, kiss free trade good bye forever. Everyone and their grandmother with a gun will start demanding protection fee, like the 19th century.  You've no idea how fortunate you are to have lived in the America's grace. 

Edited January 25 by paxamericana

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Canada disrespected it self freeriding on the American people. We subsidized global trade and trade in NAFTA. 

Sorry but that's not true. The Americans benefited tremendously under both of those things.

The only things piggy back on was the military and to be blunt that's how America wanted it. Whenever candidate attempted to develop its own military technology America came up and shut it down. The most famous being the Avro Arrow where the president practically yelled at the prime minister and insisted to be scrapped

So that's kind of on you. This is what you wanted and now you're complaining now that you've arrived to the benefits

[paxamericana]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So that's kind of on you. This is what you wanted and now you're complaining now that you've arrived to the benefits

No the world has moved on since the soviet collapse. Those issue are no longer valid to justify the global protectorate.

[Michael Hardner]

21 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 I’m not sure how we can negotiate a trade deal with a person who doesn’t respect our institutions or even our country. 

We won't.  And fewer nations will.  The world will wait this out, I expect.

EDITED TO ADD: MCUSA does come up for renewal.  Unsure what Trump will try to do with the deal he himself created.

 

Edited January 25 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, paxamericana said:

 We subsidized global trade and trade in NAFTA.  

We're not under NAFTA we're under Trump's MCUSA.

[paxamericana]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're not under NAFTA we're under Trump's MCUSA.

Your point being? You’re clearly upset near zero tariffs NAFTA deals went away.

Edited January 25 by paxamericana

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

No the world has moved on since the soviet collapse. 

And America has still benefited. That's why Donald Trump signed the deal in the first place. Remember when he called it the greatest trade deal ever?  

And America hasn't moved on, America still benefiting from Canada not having its own military industry.

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

Those issue are no longer valid to justify the global protectorate.

Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be. Russia is still a major threat and so is china.

Kind of painted yourself into the corner there little guy  

[paxamericana]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Russia is still a major threat and so is china.

They are not strategic threat, they're a regional, short term threat to their immediate neighbor sure. Not a threat to American strategic interest. But you know what is a threat to American strategic interest. Canda not being 51st. and Greenland

Edited January 25 by paxamericana

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

They are not strategic threat, they're a regional, short term threat to their immediate neighbor sure. Not a threat to American strategic interest. But you know what is a threat to American strategic interest. Canda not being 51st. and Greenland

They are absolutely a strategic threat. In fact that's trump's whole reason for one in Greenland.

You're not telling me trump was lying are you?

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Your point being? You’re clearly upset near zero tariffs NAFTA deals went away.

I don't know where you're getting that from. 

You're talking about a deal that Trump already redesigned. 

 

So you're talking about old history.

[paxamericana]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

a strategic threat

implies long term. Russia is going away this century and so will the Chinese. India is a longer term potential threat. Potential asIndia for it's part has been mostly insular. Russia's navy is impotent and Chinese navy doesn't have legs.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

implies long term. Russia is going away this century and so will the Chinese. India is a longer term potential threat. Potential asIndia for it's part has been mostly insular. Russia's navy is impotent and Chinese navy doesn't have legs.

Sorry but there's no indication that Russia were china are going away this century. In fact if anything there's some reason to believe that Chinese may be extremely resurgent in the not too distant future. Russia could definitely go either way.

So I'm afraid you lost that one handily kiddo.  

Like I said, it's not nice to be calling trump a liar like that   

[paxamericana]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but there's no indication that Russia were china are going away this century

Really like nothing glaring like sub replalcement birth rate or the 1 child policy!?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Really like nothing glaring like sub replalcement birth rate or the 1 child policy!?

Kid, we ALL have sub replacement birth rates. They are doing better than either of our countries.  And they've got far too many people as it is, so they've got a lot of room to p.ay with there    The us is bigger and has about 400 million people ish  and china has like 1.5 billion as i recall. 

The fact is for them reducing their population a little would actually improve things for them.  But they're not 'going' anywhere. 

And the 1 child policy WAS what they had when their growth rate was too strong. It's not there any more.  They got rid of that like 10 years ago. 

China's going to get stronger, not weaker.  And russia could very well do the same, too soon to tell. 

Again, you're saying trump is a liar. is that what you believe? You seem somewhat afraid to address that. 

[paxamericana]

On 1/25/2026 at 11:15 PM, CdnFox said:

we ALL have sub replacement birth rates. They are doing better than either of our countries.

??? No America recently went below sub replacement in 2010. That’s 50 years later than Canada, Russia or China mmmkay . You can’t even biologically repopulate. America can.

 

On 1/25/2026 at 11:15 PM, CdnFox said:

China's going to get stronger, not weaker.  And russia could very well do the same, too soon to tell. 

No. Put the voice to text down gramps.

Edited January 28 by paxamericana

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, paxamericana said:

??? No America recently went below sub replacement in 2010. That’s 50 years later than Canada, Russia or China mmmkay . You can’t even biologically repopulate. America can.

 

No. Put the voice to text down gramps.

LOL ohhh kid, i would have thought by now you'd have learned to double check your facts before talking to me to AVOID looking like a complete re tard.    

You need at LEAST a 2.1 percent fertiilty rate to even replace your population. And many say that's not accurate and it's more like 2.2. 

The last time the us was at 2.1 or over was about 1970 give or take a year.  The rest of the time after that the us has been BELOW replacement

Fertility rate in the U.S. 1800-2020| Statista

Now.... i know math is hard for you and many US schools are substandard, but if you count on your fingers and toes you'll realize that in fact 1970 -2025 is actually FIFTY FIVE (55) years. 

LOLOLOL I'll say this, if we ever decide to join the us it will NOT be because of the fantastic education system  

 

oh and china dropped below replacement in 1991, so that's WAY after the us. And it was intentional with laws to make that happen as i recall. Sorry kiddo.  

Did you have anything else or are you done looking like a twat for the day?  

 

[paxamericana]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL ohhh kid, i would have thought by now you'd have learned to double check your facts before talking to me to AVOID looking like a complete re tard.    

You need at LEAST a 2.1 percent fertiilty rate to even replace your population. And many say that's not accurate and it's more like 2.2. 

The last time the us was at 2.1 or over was about 1970 give or take a year.  The rest of the time after that the us has been BELOW replacement

Fertility rate in the U.S. 1800-2020| Statista

Now.... i know math is hard for you and many US schools are substandard, but if you count on your fingers and toes you'll realize that in fact 1970 -2025 is actually FIFTY FIVE (55) years. 

LOLOLOL I'll say this, if we ever decide to join the us it will NOT be because of the fantastic education system  

 

oh and china dropped below replacement in 1991, so that's WAY after the us. And it was intentional with laws to make that happen as i recall. Sorry kiddo.  

Did you have anything else or are you done looking like a twat for the day?  

 

Wait did you even read your own source?!