Rendered at 04:18:03 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
dreamlayers 49 minutes ago [-]
The biggest problem is that Canada shares a long land border with the US but is isolated by oceans from other countries. Having alternatives is good, but conflict with the US is dangerous. The US could do a huge amount of damage just by blocking trade with Canada. They're also capable of blocking trade between Canada and other countries, and occupying Canada. It is probably unwise to escalate conflict when the other side can escalate a lot more.
drunkan 33 minutes ago [-]
so Canada should just succumb to almighty bullies? i think not.
matheusmoreira 34 minutes ago [-]
To be an enemy of America is dangerous. To be an ally, fatal.
beardyw 10 hours ago [-]
It takes much longer to regain trust that it takes to lose it.
penguin_booze 2 hours ago [-]
Things you lose only once but never regain: trust, reputation, and virginity.
xeonmc 2 hours ago [-]
glass, China, and reputation, are easily crack’d, and never well mended.
-- Benjamin Franklin
culi 55 minutes ago [-]
Kinda funny coming from a salveowner and infamous cheater that neglected his family and eventually publicly disowned his own son. He was involved in numerous scandals but I guess when you're a newspaper mogul you can make up whatever reality you want
chrisweekly 2 hours ago [-]
One of those things is not like the others.
CalRobert 11 hours ago [-]
Interesting that this comes as millions of Americans discover they have a claim to a Canadian passport thanks to recent rule changes. If they play they hand right (and maybe actually build housing) Canada could benefit from American brain drain.
bsimpson 2 hours ago [-]
This comment made me learn that I wouldn't have been eligible, but am now. (Grandpa was born in Canada.)
hervature 1 hours ago [-]
I am a Canadian and I think you are demonstrating an unreal amount of cope thinking that this will have any meaningful impact on migration trends. The NAFTA agreement (and followups) allow the free-flow of professionals between the countries. Any "brain" that wanted to flee could already do so.
this conversation has to be happening all over the world right now.
calmbonsai 11 hours ago [-]
Good. Many Canadians view Carney as a "war-time" PM and I think that's accurate.
The Trump administration has treated Canada and Canadians appallingly. It will take many years and another President, but I hope the U.S. can repair relations. The onus is on us.
Canada honored its commitments. The U.S. started this stupid trade war.
CoastalCoder 10 hours ago [-]
I fear it's going to take more than just one other president.
Now we've all see what one bad POTUS can do to the world, and I don't know if/how/why the world would trulyove past that.
It reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "The Shelter" [0].
It's not just Canada, who is going to trust US anymore?
Certainly no Europe after tarrifs, NATO, Ukraine, and this war..
Certainly not GCC after this war
Certainly not Asia after this war
Certainly not Japan after the awful "nuke" jokes and abuses
.. like really? Who is on US aside?
Dems can try all they want, but the US trust is gone imo.
adjejmxbdjdn 1 hours ago [-]
The U.S. has 75+ years of an incredible consumer economy, ties with nations, and deep entrenchment in civilian supply chains and military logistics, so countries can’t just break away.
What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
The problem, from a U.S. perspective, is that 2 decades from now, these decisions might have cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars, but it will largely be impossible to tell because the nature of losses will be in billions of dollars of economic activity that could have been created but were never even conceived, so the alternate path will be impossible to know.
notatoad 1 hours ago [-]
a 75 year history isn't anything to brag about on a global scale, that's a very young country. an unbroken 75 year history as a reliable partner might be something, but if your time as a reliable economic partner only lasts 75 years, that's not very reliable.
the one thing that the US still has is money. countries want to trade with countries that have money, whether they're trustworthy or untrustworthy, moral or immoral. as long as the US continues to be rich, they'll continue to have good trading relationships. we've all just got to hope that this current trend reverses before the us stops being a rich country.
palmotea 10 minutes ago [-]
> What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
> It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
I don't think any Western democracy can keep up such a project for that long, after the immediate political irritant has disappeared. I mean, FFS, pretty much everything "new" that's people build is dependent on China. Trump is an stupid old man, China is a bigger long-term threat to democracy and is smarter and more strategic.
What I'm saying is: is once Trump leaves office (and especially once he's dead), the process you talk about will almost certainly reverse. It may seem hard to believe in this moment, but people will move on from Trump.
drunkan 28 minutes ago [-]
the reek of American exceptionalism. There is plenty of history out there you just have to realise america does not have much and there is allot outside of it.
brazukadev 4 hours ago [-]
You missed South America. We did not trust the US before but are forced to give the US business preference as per the so called Monroe Doctrine, now with a "Trump Corollary"
michtzik 1 hours ago [-]
> Canada honored its commitments.
Two decades ago: "in 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending."
Canada has not remotely upheld this agreement.
throwpoaster 58 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, we only recently began honouring our agreements[0], and even then we did it my recategorizing non-military spending as military[1].
[1]: "That five per cent figure is somewhat deceptive, since just 3.5 per cent of that will go to core defence needs, while 1.5 per cent is to cover spending loosely related to national security — such as funding for maritime ports, airports and other infrastructure." - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-u...
drunkan 26 minutes ago [-]
ah yes a perfectly reasonable explanation to start a trade war with your ally that hurts both economies.
eli_gottlieb 1 hours ago [-]
That has nothing to do with Trump's trade policies w.r.t Canada, though.
palmotea 8 minutes ago [-]
> That has nothing to do with Trump's trade policies w.r.t Canada, though.
If Canada's going to wag a finger at the US about breaking commitments, it does.
throwatdem12311 11 hours ago [-]
It’s gonna take more than a dem POTUS sucking up to us to fix this. MAGA will outlast Trump and the everlasting threat of another lunatic Republican president doing this crap again means this isn’t going away as easily as replacing a president.
hyperman1 10 hours ago [-]
Before Trump, there was Bush Jr. The world's view on him was also dim, but 9/11/2001 made the world cut the USA a lot of slack. It turns out he was the new normal, instead of a temporary savage spot. Trump is not the only USA leader in the back of the world's mind.
wk_end 9 hours ago [-]
Bush II was awful in all sorts of ways; it's not crazy to say that as chaotic as Trump's first presidency was, it was nowhere near as destructive as Bush's terms. I in no way want to white-wash Bush, which I feel like some people have done in the wake of Trump.
But despite that, Bush's presidency was generally continuous with American presidencies since World War II. He still, at root, steered the ship as though he were a believer in the narrative of America as a leader of the free world, rather than as a selfish actor who needs to get one over on everyone else in order to get ahead. Regardless of the world's judgement of Bush, I don't think it sowed much doubt in many minds about their overall relationship with America, and not just because of 9/11 or because he was just one president. The US could have continued electing Bushes forever and not much would have changed.
Whereas: Trump's presidency - especially this second term - is utterly destabilizing. He's single-handedly destroyed America's soft power and place in the world.
michaelbarton 7 hours ago [-]
I agree. I think it’s fair to say that while many people might agree Bush II is someone you could have a beer with compared to the current prest his foreign policy decisions lead to excess mortality in the range of half a million.
It wasn’t a surprise to us. It’s how Canadians already feel. Threaten our sovereignty and that’s what happens.
abacadaba 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nomdep 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
CalRobert 11 hours ago [-]
…yes? This is literally something the US administration has openly discussed.
deeg 11 hours ago [-]
I'm hoping it was sarcasm but these days you never know.
Sabinus 7 hours ago [-]
If it works and you capitulate, Trump was serious. If it doesn't, and you resist, he was merely joking.
Although the other excuse is, 'it's a negotiating tactic' but you don't see that one as much any more.
CalRobert 11 hours ago [-]
I think it’s clear we do know. It’s not.
junon 11 hours ago [-]
That is the official stance of the US president, yes.
aggakake 11 hours ago [-]
From a Trump speech
"Canada called me a couple of weeks ago. They want to be part of it. To which I said, well, why don't you just join our country? Become 51, become the 51st state and you get it for free,"
Numerous other examples if you are honestly asking for evidence.
4 hours ago [-]
nomdep 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
throwatdem12311 11 hours ago [-]
Or maybe it was Trump saying multiple times that he wanted to make Canada a state?!
darepublic 11 hours ago [-]
As a Canadian I feel like this country has some problems that contribute to the brain drain south. And I feel like Trump is definitely not our friend but the situation could have been helpful to stir us up to self reflection. But I fear that instead we will just try to recreate the former status quo by whatever means and call that a victory. But what it means is the inevitable decline of this country.
Kareem71 11 hours ago [-]
As a Canadian I am afraid that the more bad behavior the USA exhibits on the world stage, the easier it becomes to scapegoat and not look within at our own problems.
It was maybe 15ish years ago when Blackberry was at its peak. A world with such a dominant tech company in Canada today seems comically impossible
wk_end 8 hours ago [-]
This seems like such a strange comment to make on an article about the leader of Canada advocating for exactly the sort of national reflection you’re talking about and explicitly calling for an end to that status quo you’re worried we’ll try to recreate.
AlexandrB 52 minutes ago [-]
So far the major move has been undermining Canada's auto industry[1] to create closer ties to China. As the saying goes: Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
The US is already funding separatist movements here.
JohnTHaller 10 hours ago [-]
It would be unsurprising if US-based conservative think tanks were already doing this. Worth noting that the ones we'd be unsurprised to see do this are neither conservative nor think tanks.
Conservative voting American here. I can’t imagine that happening, and have never heard of anything even remotely similar.
I read a variety of sources, and honestly the most critical things Ive seen about Canada involved Trudeau. ( The very most critical were about Trudeau dressing in blackface, which I admit mystifies me. )
I’d say the most prevalent attitude I see towards Canada is to wish you well. I think almost all Americans want for Canadians to be proud, independent neighbors.
P.S. Thank you for ‘Murdoch Mysteries’, which my family watched for several seasons. It got a little too… socially oriented ( preachy, woke ) in the latter seasons for our taste, but the early years were solid gold. Great show.
kken 8 hours ago [-]
Asking just to be sure: does “conservative voter” imply that you endorse the trump administration?
A bit surprised to see this on hn at this time.
RickJWagner 3 hours ago [-]
I did vote for Trump. I like some, but not all, of his policies.
It should not be surprising. Trump won the popular vote and all seven swing states. Even hardcore supporters tire of some of his antics. Supporters have accomplishments they can be happy with.
eli_gottlieb 1 hours ago [-]
Fell For It Again Award
rjrjrjrj 1 hours ago [-]
> I like some, but not all, of his policies.
His only discernible policy is to lie. About everything, all the time.
cherry_tree 2 hours ago [-]
10th lowest winning margin in all of US history. Far from the picture you are trying to paint that most Americans are pro-trump. Most Americans either didn’t vote or voted against trump.
Do you just pretend the US's history of undermining states in central and south America doesn't exist?
RickJWagner 3 hours ago [-]
No, I said I have never heard an American say they believed we should bring harm to Canada.
The consensus seems to be that they are a good neighbor, but different from the US in some aspects. Some, but not all, envy things like healthcare.
cherry_tree 2 hours ago [-]
Trump called the Canadian prime minister a governor while threatening 100% tariffs and threatening to annex Greenland. The US government also did literally reach out to Albertan separatists.
The actions of the government you support and the supposed “consensus” you cite are opposed.
Sabinus 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cherry_tree 7 hours ago [-]
>voting American here
>have never heard of anything even remotely similar
And therein lies the problem. What the parent said is something the USA has practiced in dozens of countries. For just a single example, operation cyclone had the USA arming separatist militias to fight against the Soviet afghan government. You may be familiar with one of these militia members:
>the most well-known Arab financier and militant of the group during this period was Osama bin Laden, who would later found al-Qaeda and mastermind the September 11 attacks on the United States.
First off, the difference in diction between PM Mark Carney and other world leaders is startling. Clear, cogent reasoning with rhetoric meant to impart on the listener that the speaker respects them and the presentation of an actual plan instead of just concepts of one is refreshing.
Second. I've been finding it more and more difficult to communicate online with Americans or people who have succumbed to contemporary American-brained thinking. There's something corrosive about being surrounded by slurred, infantile thinking, it seems like even the most intelligent people will eventually succumb to it and regurgitate it back because they see it as the easy road and suffer no immediate consequences for doing so.
It's extremely frustrating to see this come from American oligarchs who bend the knee to a mad king with a sexual penchant for young girls. To satiate their greed people like Sam Altman and Tim Cook align themselves with the worst of American society and unctuously flatter them with gaudy bauble bribes and obsequious speeches. Sure it serves their immediate purposes but what are the long term consequences of this? Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
It seems like America is rudderless now, a living ghost shambling into an uncertain but terminal future. Other countries see that now and there's a strong 'if it bleeds we can kill it' vibe after watching America deplete years of missile stocks against Iran only to watch China begin to resupply Iranian stockpiles to provide the Americans with another opportunity to deplete years more.
Where does America go from here?
vharuck 1 hours ago [-]
> Sure it serves their immediate purposes but what are the long term consequences of this? Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
It makes me wonder, at what amount of wealth does it stop being "F%ck you" money and start being a ranking on the scoreboard?
negura 4 hours ago [-]
> Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
you should look into how wealthy elites live. this is not "their" society, they are completley detached from it. their homes are surrounded by tall walls [0]. they have their own neighbourhoods. they buy themselves islands to party on. they fly there using private jets. they talk with each other in private signal groups or at off-the-record clubs. they build themselves bunkers. they invest in chartered cities. that is the psychology of wealthy people. they are not and do not wish to be a part of society
in fact, they don't want society to exist as society at all. because while they unite and collude, they simultaneously discourage everyone else from doing the same. in his davos speech [1], carney himself quoted the phrase "workers of the world unite" in order to discredit it. he gave it as an example of dishonesty, something worthy of scorn. due to its use by communist regimes. historically his point is valid. but the subtext is clear
> Carney's Davos speech (Jan 2026) evoked "workers of the world unite"
No it didn't. He gave it as an example of something people behind the Iron Curtain didn’t believe but parroted "to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along".
The man is a banker. The implication that Carney - arguably the most neoliberal leader Canada has ever seen - is a communist is absurd.
negura 5 hours ago [-]
yeah exactly. it's bizarre to highlight that quote from his davos speech completley out of context. he inteded it as a way to completely discredit communism. and to ridicule the idea of unionization. he then spent 10 minutes passionately making the case for continuing the neoliberal capitalist agenda
wk_end 3 hours ago [-]
That is...also a misrepresentation of what Carney was saying.
He was referencing the words of a writer from Czechia, a country where communism discredited itself, who discussed how people pretended not to notice the gap between the government's rhetoric and its actions, and compared it to how countries politely have pretended to ignore the gap between the aspirations of the "rules-based international order" and how it played out in practice.
Of course, he could have used as an example a different dissident who said something similar from a different country who operated under a different totalitarian regime. Or skipped the analogy to political repression altogether. You could say that reflects Carney's particular biases, I guess, but I wouldn't go further than that. At no point does he ridicule or even mention unionization.
negura 3 hours ago [-]
i agree that discrediting communism wasn't really the topic of his talk. but the phrase is a call to unionization in itself. especially when shopkeepers use it, like in the story carney referenced. capable politicians don't leave clear subtext like that to chance. which is why it's bizarre to highlight it without context, like in OP's message. on its own it doesn't convey the scorn with which carney framed it
throwawaypath 5 hours ago [-]
>"workers of the world unite"
Translation: "I'm going to import another 10 million MENA/Indian immigrants for the pedophilic global capitalist elites and if you complain, you'll be labeled a racist and charged with a crime."
youngtaff 11 hours ago [-]
And of course it's now flagged…
throwpoaster 1 hours ago [-]
Canada and America are neighbours. It is far cheaper for Canada to ship things south into a giant market than to ship east and west into our own, smaller markets. Trading with anyone else in the world entails much larger shipping expenses. This is structural, and applies to something exceeding 90% of our trade.
Carney is wrong, but he's not a fool. I read this as high-level virtue signalling to two audiences: Canadian left-patriots, who love to hate America while (unknowingly) free-riding on the benefits of the relationship. He has a vulnerable majority and is smart enough to plan ahead for the next election. Over half of Boomers support the Liberals, so he is playing to their emotions. He doesn't need to play to their pocket books, because they're mostly as rich as they're going to get, so he can trade economics for votes.
Second: he's signalling to China, and other international trade partners, that we are open for business. Carney has been struggling with pro-China (former) members of his caucus also being pro-slave-labour[0]. This is a message that, as he indicated in his Davos speech[1], he is willing to be flexible on Human Rights if the price is right.
America hasn't changed. When Trump is gone the American export market will remain.
Carney is wrong, but he's not a fool. He's amoral.
CAN rail to port to transPac/Asia is cheaper than rail/truck to US post tariff (most commodities now). Also it's ~75% of CAN exports goes to US, and it was only structurally cheaper under previous trade arrangement's, now it's structurally more expensive.
Carney's just pointing out the obvious, structurally building economy around US integration/dependency has backfired and will continue to even after Trump for the simple reason VZ oil now challenges WCS, and (preferential/discounted crude to US) basically accounts for all CAN-US surplus. CAN would be in massive goods and services deficit otherwise - like 80B deficit in goods and services. Canada was always massive real political economy loser in US-CAN trade, would have more favorite trade ledger with 100% domestic goods/service (i.e. 0 goods/service trade with US) and 100% global energy.
Reality for CAN is export to US is half commodity, half goods. Of the goods, US has strangled/killed CAN tech, aviation and soon auto. The commodity half, we've send them discount energy because we hedged on integration even though we could have structurally build infra to ship finished products to global markets (at higher margins). Like goods that CAN use to be competitive in, US lobbying / behind scenes shenanigans killed a lot attempts. Meanwhile, we have massive service deficit via US. Goods+Service balance still in CAN favour ONLY because of energy pricing, which again US is getting discount on for CAN being retarded with pipleines not developing refined petro for decades. CAN now getting double fucked for acceding to US gas station arrangement, post VZ, that arrangement is expendable and again, VZ oil not going away after Trump.
>he is willing to be flexible on Human Rights if the price is right
Or Canada no longer needs toe line with US propaganda on human rights, that was always predicated on happy vassal privileges. Canada was alway (A)moral, as in morals was always subject to highest bidder. US no longer wants to pay so we look elsewhere.
CoastalCoder 12 hours ago [-]
My dear friends to the north: I just want to repeat how sorry many of us are for this.
deeg 11 hours ago [-]
And that some of us are trying to change the situation. My reps have heard from me multiple times.
xena 11 hours ago [-]
Ah yes, strongly worded letters. That is the way to fix things. They must be trembling in fear at the weight of your words.
AndrewDucker 9 hours ago [-]
What do you suggest?
cherry_tree 7 hours ago [-]
* focus locally; getting invoked with local politics by supporting local candidates with your time and effort - the state department runs programs to talk to city and state officials concerning foreign policy matters and city’s and local governments can create pressure on federal representatives from those states.
* vote with your wallet; boycotts and divestments are tools ordinary people have to effect conglomerates. Ensure your retirement money is not invested with companies engaging with the political ideas you do not agree with
* protest; attending in person events shows leaders numbers and images that are harder to ignore than their consultants’ polling data.
deeg 57 minutes ago [-]
I've done all of those and while I think they are important i believe it's most important to let politicians know, otherwise they rely too much on money.
brazukadev 3 hours ago [-]
Pointing that whatever people think they are doing is not working does not mean we have to propose a solution. I'd suggest revolution, but that won't ever happen in the US.
11 hours ago [-]
dr_kretyn 11 hours ago [-]
These really feel hollow. Just like "thoughts and prayers." ACK.
CoastalCoder 10 hours ago [-]
What would you consider more appropriate?
I'm not willing to start another actual civil war over Trump's presidency.
I figured an apology was at least an improvement over not apologizing.
wk_end 7 hours ago [-]
FWIW, I'm a Canadian and I do appreciate it. There's a lot of raw feelings up here, but I know there's only so much any individual can do.
abirch 11 hours ago [-]
I apologize as well; however, they need to diversify. They can't count on the USA.
Oh, it seems this has been Canadian flagged for some reason. Probably somebody favoring another flag got upset.
bmandale 10 hours ago [-]
Politics are generally off topic and tend to be flagged.
frm88 41 minutes ago [-]
Only true for non US politics.
vjvjvjvjghv 2 hours ago [-]
You can only hope that Canada (and Europe) will do more than just being mad at the US. From what I hear from Canadians, Canada is in a very bad spot with high cost of living but salaries that aren't enough to afford that. Complaining about the americans isn't going to solve that. Same for Europe. Stop focusing on Trump and start standing on your own feet.
frm88 32 minutes ago [-]
Stop focusing on Trump and start standing on your own feet.
I agree with this, but these are frankly hard things to do when Trumps war is bound to cause a worldwide recession.
The Trump administration has treated Canada and Canadians appallingly. It will take many years and another President, but I hope the U.S. can repair relations. The onus is on us.
Canada honored its commitments. The U.S. started this stupid trade war.
Now we've all see what one bad POTUS can do to the world, and I don't know if/how/why the world would trulyove past that.
It reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "The Shelter" [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shelter_(The_Twilight_Zone...
Certainly no Europe after tarrifs, NATO, Ukraine, and this war..
Certainly not GCC after this war
Certainly not Asia after this war
Certainly not Japan after the awful "nuke" jokes and abuses .. like really? Who is on US aside?
Dems can try all they want, but the US trust is gone imo.
What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
The problem, from a U.S. perspective, is that 2 decades from now, these decisions might have cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars, but it will largely be impossible to tell because the nature of losses will be in billions of dollars of economic activity that could have been created but were never even conceived, so the alternate path will be impossible to know.
the one thing that the US still has is money. countries want to trade with countries that have money, whether they're trustworthy or untrustworthy, moral or immoral. as long as the US continues to be rich, they'll continue to have good trading relationships. we've all just got to hope that this current trend reverses before the us stops being a rich country.
> It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
I don't think any Western democracy can keep up such a project for that long, after the immediate political irritant has disappeared. I mean, FFS, pretty much everything "new" that's people build is dependent on China. Trump is an stupid old man, China is a bigger long-term threat to democracy and is smarter and more strategic.
What I'm saying is: is once Trump leaves office (and especially once he's dead), the process you talk about will almost certainly reverse. It may seem hard to believe in this moment, but people will move on from Trump.
Two decades ago: "in 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending."
Canada has not remotely upheld this agreement.
[0]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/history-canada-nato-mil...
[1]: "That five per cent figure is somewhat deceptive, since just 3.5 per cent of that will go to core defence needs, while 1.5 per cent is to cover spending loosely related to national security — such as funding for maritime ports, airports and other infrastructure." - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-declares-u...
If Canada's going to wag a finger at the US about breaking commitments, it does.
But despite that, Bush's presidency was generally continuous with American presidencies since World War II. He still, at root, steered the ship as though he were a believer in the narrative of America as a leader of the free world, rather than as a selfish actor who needs to get one over on everyone else in order to get ahead. Regardless of the world's judgement of Bush, I don't think it sowed much doubt in many minds about their overall relationship with America, and not just because of 9/11 or because he was just one president. The US could have continued electing Bushes forever and not much would have changed.
Whereas: Trump's presidency - especially this second term - is utterly destabilizing. He's single-handedly destroyed America's soft power and place in the world.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article%3Fid%3D10.137...
Although the other excuse is, 'it's a negotiating tactic' but you don't see that one as much any more.
"Canada called me a couple of weeks ago. They want to be part of it. To which I said, well, why don't you just join our country? Become 51, become the 51st state and you get it for free,"
Numerous other examples if you are honestly asking for evidence.
It was maybe 15ish years ago when Blackberry was at its peak. A world with such a dominant tech company in Canada today seems comically impossible
[1] https://toronto.citynews.ca/2026/01/18/mark-carney-says-chin...
Is a lot of words, but little actions.
https://provincialtimes.ca/questions-mount-over-jamil-jivani...
I read a variety of sources, and honestly the most critical things Ive seen about Canada involved Trudeau. ( The very most critical were about Trudeau dressing in blackface, which I admit mystifies me. )
I’d say the most prevalent attitude I see towards Canada is to wish you well. I think almost all Americans want for Canadians to be proud, independent neighbors.
P.S. Thank you for ‘Murdoch Mysteries’, which my family watched for several seasons. It got a little too… socially oriented ( preachy, woke ) in the latter seasons for our taste, but the early years were solid gold. Great show.
A bit surprised to see this on hn at this time.
It should not be surprising. Trump won the popular vote and all seven swing states. Even hardcore supporters tire of some of his antics. Supporters have accomplishments they can be happy with.
His only discernible policy is to lie. About everything, all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
The consensus seems to be that they are a good neighbor, but different from the US in some aspects. Some, but not all, envy things like healthcare.
The actions of the government you support and the supposed “consensus” you cite are opposed.
>have never heard of anything even remotely similar
And therein lies the problem. What the parent said is something the USA has practiced in dozens of countries. For just a single example, operation cyclone had the USA arming separatist militias to fight against the Soviet afghan government. You may be familiar with one of these militia members:
>the most well-known Arab financier and militant of the group during this period was Osama bin Laden, who would later found al-Qaeda and mastermind the September 11 attacks on the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
First off, the difference in diction between PM Mark Carney and other world leaders is startling. Clear, cogent reasoning with rhetoric meant to impart on the listener that the speaker respects them and the presentation of an actual plan instead of just concepts of one is refreshing.
Second. I've been finding it more and more difficult to communicate online with Americans or people who have succumbed to contemporary American-brained thinking. There's something corrosive about being surrounded by slurred, infantile thinking, it seems like even the most intelligent people will eventually succumb to it and regurgitate it back because they see it as the easy road and suffer no immediate consequences for doing so.
It's extremely frustrating to see this come from American oligarchs who bend the knee to a mad king with a sexual penchant for young girls. To satiate their greed people like Sam Altman and Tim Cook align themselves with the worst of American society and unctuously flatter them with gaudy bauble bribes and obsequious speeches. Sure it serves their immediate purposes but what are the long term consequences of this? Do these people realize that every time they sell a piece of their soul to increase their personal wealth it destroys a piece of their society? Do they care?
It seems like America is rudderless now, a living ghost shambling into an uncertain but terminal future. Other countries see that now and there's a strong 'if it bleeds we can kill it' vibe after watching America deplete years of missile stocks against Iran only to watch China begin to resupply Iranian stockpiles to provide the Americans with another opportunity to deplete years more.
Where does America go from here?
It makes me wonder, at what amount of wealth does it stop being "F%ck you" money and start being a ranking on the scoreboard?
you should look into how wealthy elites live. this is not "their" society, they are completley detached from it. their homes are surrounded by tall walls [0]. they have their own neighbourhoods. they buy themselves islands to party on. they fly there using private jets. they talk with each other in private signal groups or at off-the-record clubs. they build themselves bunkers. they invest in chartered cities. that is the psychology of wealthy people. they are not and do not wish to be a part of society
in fact, they don't want society to exist as society at all. because while they unite and collude, they simultaneously discourage everyone else from doing the same. in his davos speech [1], carney himself quoted the phrase "workers of the world unite" in order to discredit it. he gave it as an example of dishonesty, something worthy of scorn. due to its use by communist regimes. historically his point is valid. but the subtext is clear
[0] https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/inside-jeff-bezo...
[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-a...
- Carney's Davos speech (Jan 2026) evoked "workers of the world unite" [1];
- Carney's pre-election speech (Mar 2025) claimed the old relationship with the US is over [2]; and
- Trump's handling of Canada relations, particularly with the tariff frenzy, basically ended up giving the election to Carney [3].
This administration is busy destroying the relationships and institutions that the US created for America's interests like NATO.
[1]: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-a...
[2]: https://speakola.com/political/mark-carney-response-to-trump...
[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypz7yx73wo
No it didn't. He gave it as an example of something people behind the Iron Curtain didn’t believe but parroted "to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along".
The man is a banker. The implication that Carney - arguably the most neoliberal leader Canada has ever seen - is a communist is absurd.
He was referencing the words of a writer from Czechia, a country where communism discredited itself, who discussed how people pretended not to notice the gap between the government's rhetoric and its actions, and compared it to how countries politely have pretended to ignore the gap between the aspirations of the "rules-based international order" and how it played out in practice.
Of course, he could have used as an example a different dissident who said something similar from a different country who operated under a different totalitarian regime. Or skipped the analogy to political repression altogether. You could say that reflects Carney's particular biases, I guess, but I wouldn't go further than that. At no point does he ridicule or even mention unionization.
Translation: "I'm going to import another 10 million MENA/Indian immigrants for the pedophilic global capitalist elites and if you complain, you'll be labeled a racist and charged with a crime."
Carney is wrong, but he's not a fool. I read this as high-level virtue signalling to two audiences: Canadian left-patriots, who love to hate America while (unknowingly) free-riding on the benefits of the relationship. He has a vulnerable majority and is smart enough to plan ahead for the next election. Over half of Boomers support the Liberals, so he is playing to their emotions. He doesn't need to play to their pocket books, because they're mostly as rich as they're going to get, so he can trade economics for votes.
Second: he's signalling to China, and other international trade partners, that we are open for business. Carney has been struggling with pro-China (former) members of his caucus also being pro-slave-labour[0]. This is a message that, as he indicated in his Davos speech[1], he is willing to be flexible on Human Rights if the price is right.
America hasn't changed. When Trump is gone the American export market will remain.
Carney is wrong, but he's not a fool. He's amoral.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFHgR4vAurg
[1]: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-a...
CAN rail to port to transPac/Asia is cheaper than rail/truck to US post tariff (most commodities now). Also it's ~75% of CAN exports goes to US, and it was only structurally cheaper under previous trade arrangement's, now it's structurally more expensive.
Carney's just pointing out the obvious, structurally building economy around US integration/dependency has backfired and will continue to even after Trump for the simple reason VZ oil now challenges WCS, and (preferential/discounted crude to US) basically accounts for all CAN-US surplus. CAN would be in massive goods and services deficit otherwise - like 80B deficit in goods and services. Canada was always massive real political economy loser in US-CAN trade, would have more favorite trade ledger with 100% domestic goods/service (i.e. 0 goods/service trade with US) and 100% global energy.
Reality for CAN is export to US is half commodity, half goods. Of the goods, US has strangled/killed CAN tech, aviation and soon auto. The commodity half, we've send them discount energy because we hedged on integration even though we could have structurally build infra to ship finished products to global markets (at higher margins). Like goods that CAN use to be competitive in, US lobbying / behind scenes shenanigans killed a lot attempts. Meanwhile, we have massive service deficit via US. Goods+Service balance still in CAN favour ONLY because of energy pricing, which again US is getting discount on for CAN being retarded with pipleines not developing refined petro for decades. CAN now getting double fucked for acceding to US gas station arrangement, post VZ, that arrangement is expendable and again, VZ oil not going away after Trump.
>he is willing to be flexible on Human Rights if the price is right
Or Canada no longer needs toe line with US propaganda on human rights, that was always predicated on happy vassal privileges. Canada was alway (A)moral, as in morals was always subject to highest bidder. US no longer wants to pay so we look elsewhere.
* vote with your wallet; boycotts and divestments are tools ordinary people have to effect conglomerates. Ensure your retirement money is not invested with companies engaging with the political ideas you do not agree with
* protest; attending in person events shows leaders numbers and images that are harder to ignore than their consultants’ polling data.
I'm not willing to start another actual civil war over Trump's presidency.
I figured an apology was at least an improvement over not apologizing.
I agree with this, but these are frankly hard things to do when Trumps war is bound to cause a worldwide recession.