You must log in or register to comment.
The USA literally declared economic warfare on Canada, and made multiple threats to Canadian sovereignty.
How is that anything but a war-level action?
Canada is acting out of survival. Like an abused wife, we are doing everything we can to get out the door, while keeping a smile on to placate to this egomaniac in the Whitehouse.
I’m sorry, isolationism by the US is not “war” no matter how much the media tries to use that specifically terminology.
And neither is it an excuse for centralizing power, making partisan appointments when they’ve historically been democratic, or running up a war budget when a quarter of the population can’t afford food on the table.
USA is not being isolationist.
They initiated regime change in Venezuela in January and invaded Iran in February.
They’re also actively participating in trade talks.
You need to re-evaluate your opinions on things if you’re operating on such misconceptions.
I’m sorry, why would it be considered a misconception that I don’t want power centralized?
If you seriously and genuinely read that comment to mean I disagree with your thoughts on centralization of power than you lack the reading comprehension to participate in this conversation.
Go back to middle school English class or drop the disingenuous act and acknowledge that you were mistaken on your assumption about what isolationism is.
What do you think tariffs are? They’re literally defined as isolationist and protectionist methods by a government.
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/tariffs-and-economic-isolationism-four-principles-for-a-response/
https://uslawexplained.com/isolationism
Here’s a wikipedia article if you’d like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
It’s also the terminology applied preceding to WW2 when isolationist policies of European countries applied tariffs to imports from competing empires. Which is why the couldn’t recover well from WW1.
So I appreciate the condescending tone, I really do.
But if your only issue with my comment is that “I don’t understand tariffs” and that’s what you decided to be aggressive about when the main premise is Carney’s overreach of power, then that’s not my problem.
But if your only issue with my comment is that “I don’t understand tariffs”
I never mentioned tariffs. Youre not good at conversations.
My issue is youre dishonest and misinformed. I’ll be blocking you now as you contribute negatively to my lemmy experience.
At least you’re probably human. A bot would have replied on topic.
Do you use? Or are you just incredibly creative?
Did we forget the whole “join us, voluntarily or not” rhetoric coming from the White House? That language alone was a threat of war. Actual war. Like, with tanks and shit.
Carney is engaging in disaster capitalism, and must be called out for that. But let’s not forget the disaster part.
Well I’m just glad that someone is mentioning disaster capitalism and that really is my main point to the premise of this post about centralization of power.
My “war” in quotations was about the economic war. Trump’s posturing is fucked up, aggressive, and definitely threatening; and he was betting on Canada buying weapons from the US for protection like Denmark is doing.
You can reframe the point all you want. Bottom line is trump laid a wide suite of tariffs against Canada to create a win lose dynamic.
Its has direct negative impacts on the canadian economy and it was every bit intentional to do exactly that.
Trump attacked Canada, full stop.
Nice how you manage to conveniently gloss over his direct threats to canadian sovereignty.
And remember I said economic war, never suggested there was military involvement.
My friend, the point is he’s governing as if it’s a military war by centralizing the power of government. If you were looking at a different country and saw the same actions, you would judge their leadership a lot more harshly
Even if they are, so what?
If you were looking at a different country that was actively being bullied, would you argue some crap about centralizing power?
If Denmark started centralizing power in response to trumps threats to the sovereignty of greenland, then what?
You talk like this is a problem that government is responding to external existential threats in the means that are available to them.
Are you arguing the Carney government should relinquish power?
Should they decentralize their capacity to influence things inside the country?
Perhaps you can answer just this.
What is your point?
Um…its not a choice of centralization or decentralization of power. What? Those aren’t the only choices!
Point: The choice is don’t go against the Democratic process and principles.
Like when he made a partisan appointment to roles of governance
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-senate-tom-pitfield-9.7261037
Prime minister ends Trudeau-era policy of nonpartisan appointments
Following that thread, him appointing Martel to open another seat in that riding which Carney is betting goes to a liberal seat
On the one hand, the Prime Minister gets to say that he’s non-partisan by appointing a Conservative to the Senate. On the other hand, creating an opening in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord creates a situation where the Liberals can win another seat
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we’ve seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn’t centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn’t go against political norms.
I’m sorry, but when you use ‘historically’ to refer to a policy that was enacted for less than a decade in a country that is over a century and a half old it reduces your credibility for me.
My point is that existential threats override real concern about incremental gains in administrative power by the government. I used Denmark as a hypothetical and parallel example of a country that could centralize given the same condiitons, threats to sovereignty, not anything to do with what theyre actually doing.
If this is how we’re rolling over with the “existential threat” of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That’s literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
I agree that it’s only a “war” in the sense like a “price war”, not an actual war. But it’s still open aggression and falls on the same gradient.
If we’re willing to abandon Democratic principles when war (actual battle) hasn’t even been declared, then I don’t see much hope for what will be left of our current democracy when/if that happens.
People declaring “it is wartime” are ignoring he is using this to destroy the planet faster and throw indigenous rights in the trash.
And he is also trying to force legislation through that are utterly destroying civil rights and privacy rights in Canada and increasing data sharing on Canadians with US firms like palantir and others. If his intention was to make it harder for the US to invade and quash resistance then he is doing a terrible job of it.
Exactly this. I understand that sometimes freedoms need to be traded off for security. However the freedoms we are giving up are making our security worse and not better. Canada is still a consequence free society thats being manipulated by mass propaganda. We are only making those abilities stronger.
Trading freedom for security never worked. I understand that Ben Franklin was speaking from a purely 18th century perspective, but he was right on the money when he said his famous ‘those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and are not likely to get it’.
Also historically many laws passed during war time were repealed after the war was done. Ww1 and WW2 produced many temporary laws that restricted people in Canada, the US, and the UK, but they were repealed after the war.
Anti terrorist legislation passed after 9/11(and some countries passed stuff similar but before 9/11) did diddly squat to prevent terrorism or keep people safe, but it did prevent or make harder mass social movements like those of the 1950s to 70s.
deleted by creator
That was all post war policies to address the shortages from people migrating to urban centers.
It is wartime.
This is scratch kick and bite time.
maple flavored imperialist nazi scum
Are you high?
They’re a .ml user. Don’t bother trying to look for rationality.
.ML detected, asininity rejected.
Sorry I am not one of the cool Lemmys but what does .ml have to do with it? I think it is a TLD but whats wrong wrong with .ml servers?
Nothing wrong with .ml servers.
The users however…
Just in case that’s a real question, the mods of, and the vast majority of subscribers to lemmy.ml have a weird counter-factual view of the world usually referred to (pejoratively) as “tankies”. ML is the domain chosen because it (also) stands for marxist-leninist.
Tankies seem to think that Russia continues the USSR’s fight for communism which isweird given Russia is a kleptocratic dictatorship closer to the US model than socialist let alone communist.
They do, accurately, view the US as one of the primary threats to world peace, but then indulge in all sorts of odd double think to make reality look like their desire for an imminent communist conversion of the world driven by mother russia.
The ability to pretend Putain is anything other than a fascist dictator puzzles me, but anyway:
TL;DR
LEMMY.ML predominently equals tankies with a tenuous grasp of reality
Yes it was a real question, thank you for the answer. I am a little further to the left than socialist beliefs but I also know the world is still suffering through capitalism.
i wish hehe
canada is just as imperialist and nazi as the great imperialist states of america, theyre just as guilty of neocolonialism as the eu
Canada is nazi? Youre a complete moron
Nobody is saying otherwise. You’re like Sharon in south park trying to police everyone else’s emotions.
Go back to Russia troll.
If I’m Pierre Poilievre, I stop running against the mobilization. Attacking a wartime footing the public demanded is a losing argument. I start positioning as the owner of the peace: the person with a plan for what comes after, for the pay stub and the mortgage renewal. Attlee, not the anti-Churchill.
So is this article supposed to be fantasy, science fiction, or comedy?
PP tried to not be negative… for about a week. He cannot go longer than that without saying something negative. He’s a debate club kid, whatever the topic is he is compelled to debate the other side. He is incapable of doing anything else.
Shock Doctrine 101
