The ongoing tension between Donald Trump and Canada took an unexpected turn when Ontario Premier Doug Ford suggested a counteroffer to Trump's remarks about
“I’ve talked to so many governors and congresspeople and senators and never once did they say Canada is the problem,” Ford told CNN. He emphasized that a bilateral deal between Canada and the U.S. would be a better solution than imposing tariffs on Canadian goods.
I'm no fan of Doug Ford, but he's right here. I guess Trump's plan is to drive Canada into the ground economically through tariffs then invade or otherwise annex Canada when it's too poor and desperate to resist. But why? It would be more profitable to both the USA and Canada simply not to do any of this. There are only two explanations I can think of:
Belligerence is the only thing Trump understands, even when it works to his own disadvantage, because actual diplomacy is too complicated for him and soft power contains the word "soft", and/or
Trump isn't working for the interests of the USA, but rather for those who want to see NATO and other Western alliances destroyed.
Following Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation announcement on Monday, Trump claimed credit for the decision, saying that people in Canada “love” the idea of becoming a U.S. state. This prompted Ford to make his own comments about acquiring U.S. territories.
...snip...
Canadian MP Charlie Angus rejected the idea outright, pointing to differences in the nations’ laws. Angus stated on X that Canada has rules preventing “sexual abusers” from becoming leaders, a clear reference to allegations against Trump.
I would love to have seen Trump's face when he heard that rejection.
No. He was found liable for sexual abuse in a civil trial. Convictions are criminal and the standard of evidence is higher.
Basically the courts have decided that it's slightly more likely than not that he sexually abused Carroll, which is all that's needed to win a civil case. Criminal cases are on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold which is much harder to meet.
Frankly, he probably wouldn't be criminally convicted because of the higher standard - the defense in a criminal trial doesn't have to prove the accused didn't do it, they don't even have to prove it's more likely than not they didn't do it, they only need to prove there's a reasonable doubt that they might not have done it. And I think there's just enough wiggle room around it he could possibly skate by.
I'm an Oregonian whose been craving a trip to Victoria, BC so I support the plan where I don't need a passport to do so. And I assume this would come with a box set of Kim's Convenience and/or Schitt's Creek?
But I think the GDP of those states is higher than the whole of Canada (and most of Europe). So how about we go it our own way but set up one of those fun free-trade, free movement unions with our francophonic friends.
Not to nitpick but Ford offered to buy Minnesota and Minneapolis but Minneapolis is a city IN Minnesota. I think it would come with. Kind of like whip cream.
Idk it's basically like the cities and a whole lot of nothing. He might have just been like throw in the rest of Minnesota, but no deal without Minneapolis.
It would be an occupied territory without rights, basically Puerto Rico but given the nestle treatment to stripmine it of all resources, so in a word. No
Just let them set up their republic again and use them as a buffer zone to Mexican illegal immigration. Two problems at once. I suggest building a wall.
I’m not labeling anyone I’m saying he’s probs loving folks talking about splitting. Which I absolutely denounce. It amazes me how easy the fascists have it; Wish ppl didn’t fall for it so easily