Sure, but as has been demonstrated lately, some are more unfit than others. If you replaced Trump with Romney or Obama or some other equally capable, sane person, our situation would be immeasurably improved.

Didn't he yoink that from Frank Herbert? Not that it matters who said it, but I'm sure similar sentiments are somewhere in the Dune books.

Should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_of_Nancy_Kerrigan

Indeed that's the problem.

So we need some mandatory check(up)s on extraordinary charismatic leading people who have the power to wreak havoc when they are making stupid desicions.

We (as a species) are not really getting better at that, aren't we?

> Otherwise you're not a leader, you're just some loudmouth.

Looks like you can be both. And a puppet at the same time.

Evolution is an aggressively progressive idea for some people in the US.

So which specific ideas made you think "I'll vote for the rapist gameshow host?"

12 weeks of paid family leave? More solar power? Only government run prisons? Buying into Medicare at 55? Free in state tuition for families earning less than 125k?

That's what Gemini lists as her most progressive positions.

With a two party system everything like this is inevitable. If one party sucks long enough it will get it's chance to show what suck really means to swing voters who want to see if the alternative is really as bad as people say.

They 100% got there on their own.

> Hillary Clinton while pushing aggressively progressive ideas

This is a lie. Simple as that.

And what is fucking un-comprehensible to whole world is that you knew what kind of POS he is yet you still fully voted him in second time. This ain't a single person problem anymore, he dies / is died / just finishes the office and next guy will be as bad or worse, since clearly pushing boundaries in US is the right thing to do.

This is well beyond some basic excuse of 'bb-but look at the other choice', this is 'fuck them lets kick some shit out and fuck ya all' mentality when you run around in amok with chainsaw level of idiocy.

Keeping things as polite as possible of course, but not more.

> while pushing aggressively progressive ideas

The establishment Democrats are not exactly "aggressively progressive" by any reasonable standard. They shunned Bernie Sanders, who still isn't highly radical.

If the US is no longer interested in being a good-faith partner, what alternative does Canada have?

> Responding to hostility with hostility is emotional, not rational.

And how do you classify to responding to hostility with submission?

Besides, Canada isn't even being hostile. A divorce is very different from abuse or harassment.

> As Canada is separating from the US, it is growing closer with China. This makes Canada a threat to the US. This makes the US a threat to Canada

But didn't you get the order of events precisely wrong?

Isn't it America who threatened Canada (become a state of the US)? Isn't America who threatened Canada with extreme tariffs? Etc.

> This makes the US a threat to Canada.

Don't fool yourself. The US of late has been making it perfectly clear that it's a threat to Canada regardless of what Canada does.

Military action would be brutal, but you can only say that it's unnecessary if the alternatives are better. If not now, then how many years down the line? The claims Carney are making are not light in their own right.

2-5 days is very generous.

I think if America started at 0dark30 they would be done by lunch and home for supper.

Youre saying dont do a Ukraine?

> economic models that have diverged from reality in important ways.

Can you expand on this?

There's no contradiction to resolve, Trump decided CAN should no longer benefit from proximity. That's the geopolitical reality under current US admin. There's nothing left to do but hedge and move on or wait for new US admin. Ontario auto is 2.5% of gdp, Alberta crude is 5.5%, other exports to US is 9%... i.e. 17% of CAN gdp. CAN US imports is 16% of GDP - it's reasonably balanced, and TBH US got better deal since that 5.5% crude is massive discount, CAN could be selling it for more if US meddling didn't prevent CAN from refining for decades. But broadly those are Canadian exposure. Really all CAN can do if US doesn't to trade without retarded geopolitical conditions is to hedge by diverting 17% export to other buyers and minimize the 16% imports from US (ideally circular Canadian substitution between provinces). Really if US/Trump throws hissy fit over reasonable economic rebalancing (not strategic shift, CAN not replacing NORAD with PLARF) with most of worlds' largest trade partner, then not much Canada can do but wait for next annexation attempt.

Canada has a dysfunctional domestic trade economy where it’s often easier to trade across borders with the U.S. than it is to trade across provinces.

Simply eliminating a lot of those domestic trade barriers would create more economic wealth than what Canada would lose by ending trade with the U.S. completely.

Of course in practice it won’t be that easy and the finances don’t usually materialize that easily, but the point is Canada has options for growth that are fully under its control.

If you watch his speech and the follow up interview you he answers that directly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDMyeGQm3NA @ 17:50). It's a good watch, better than the past 10 years of daily coverage by American media of what their dumb president and ex president is ranting about.

I am in the start up community in Canada. I can tell you that after the first threat from Trump every federal program to help tech start ups immediately pivoted to Asia and the EU. Before he started yapping, we were connected to Canadian representatives in the US, meeting about markets and opportunities. Now all programs are directed at forming partnerships elsewhere.

Your logic is exactly why Trump's gambits always work. Everyone knows that individually standing up to a bully is a good way to get the raw end of the deal; so nobody stands up and the bully continues racking up wins.

It's certainly not guaranteed, but taking an aggressive defensive stance is the ONLY possible way to stop having your lunch money stolen.

They are working on making themselves less dependent. They kind of expect USA to try to invade them after it invades Greenland.

It is divorce in anticipation of a bout of domestic violence.

Canada will suffer greatly, and possibly much more than the US. But appeasing US, in the position of Canada, is akin to trying to reason with a wife beater.

You don't reason. You remove the victim from the hands of the aggressor.

It will cost a lot of money, and the Canadians will suffer greatly. But the alternative is to join America, which Canadians have stated don't want to.

> rather than negotiating at the table in Washington

The US has no interest in engaging in good faith negotiations.

> For my Canadian friends, I’m sorry you’re going through this.

I am, too.

But what is Canada supposed to do? The US has become a real threat to them. The only thing the US is offering is "submit to our every whim or we'll beat you". The only rational thing to do in that situation is to distance yourself as much as possible, no matter how much that may hurt. The worst thing you can do is to roll over and take it.

Did you even listen to the speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDMyeGQm3NA

He never trashed the US, he simply stated the facts and how middle powers should respond. Not by isolating but by working together. He directly addresses how everyone is dependant on the great powers. When the great powers stop honouring the systems and structures that are in place then the 'old way' is gone. Which it is. Relying on US commitments to NORAD, NATO, Trade Agreements etc is useless.

As far as leverage goes, we will see. But we are not divorcing we are simply responding to the US giving up its global power. The negotiating table in Washington is not reliable. It's not theatre, its risk management.

Don't feel sorry for us we will prosper.

Davos? Lefty elites?

I rest my case.

:D i think russia is the one running the restaurant. If you know what i mean.

Russia was offered to join NATO a long time ago, during Yeltsin years there was a whole lot happening to help the approach of Russia to NATO.

Don't know how old you are but if you are 40+ you should remember the NATO-Russia Founding Act, in 2000 Putin said he didn't see NATO as an enemy.

So this is bullshit, it's a narrative post-hoc'd into existence to justify the imperialist ambitions of Russia under Putin.