GTFO out of here with your logic and measured takes. This is Lemmy.

I’m of the opinion that letting Trump think he’s “winning” while playing backdoor politics with friendly nations to defend Canada’s interests is not a bad approach. If they can make it to the American midterms, hopefully he’ll get hamstrung and become a lame duck president. Assuming he doesn’t find some archaic way of overriding them…

Before we applaud the 5d chess move, we are a bishop down, and no obvious plan to gain back prosperity/material. Flattering the narcisist with a sacrifice to win is indistinguishable from continued full submission and gaslighting us into it.

If the reason for doing the wrong thing is “the jobs” then you need to rethink your reasoning.

Nope, re-read what I wrote. What in there says you can’t come up with a valid opinion?

It’s more “your opinion doesn’t seem to give any weight, relief or aid to those who are affected in any way shape or form.”

It’s a trade negotiation, it’s literally all about the jobs.

I get that you aren’t affected but thousands are.

By your logic, we should just not do anything with our largest trading partner and I dunno, just wait for almost half a decade until we like the administration?

In that case, okay, I see where you’re coming from with the previous comment. But yeah, it’s always good to question claims of some 4D-chess-like move a government is doing, cause often times, we’d actually know what’s happened, and so would the party on the other side of the table.

I will also say this to clarify, cause I think it seems like we have different definitions: when I said pro-X, I only meant it in the sense that you actively do things that benefit party X. I noticed that it’s used interchangeably with “action benefits party X,” but context doesn’t always make it clear.

And I’m only saying that calling what we see right now a bend of the knee might still be a bit early given that this is a situation that’s still ongoing. If the events are to stop right now, and we essentially get nothing else on top of getting Trump on the negotiating table, then heck ya it’s a capitulation. You call it optimism, I call it seeing it for what it is putting aside my pessimistic view on it. But yes, I agree that we shouldn’t need to do what Carney did.

The questionable bills, and general de-regulation / removal of environmental reviews, are in line with US interests at present, which are backed by tech giants wanting to take more control / have more autonomy. The continued (over) reliance on US tech services is also clearly not in Canada’s best interests, given how the US has been leveraging their near monopolistic status in that realm. Many of our newly elected government officials got in on a promise of standing up to America’s authoritarian bullshit, but once in power have basically complied and made similar authoritarian steps.

This is a very charged take of Bill C-5 and it makes it hard to agree or disagree. Might just be a me-thing, but anytime people use very charged words or takes, I just have the tendency to retort, because while they aren’t possibilities you can disprove, there’s also nothing to prove them. We can entertain the possibility, but I do wonder if we’d just be focusing on the wrong problem and make constructive conversations impossible to make.

is that what we are doing or just wishful thinking?

so far all I have seen from Carney is everything Trump would want. C2 takes Canada a step closer to a police state supposedly to fight fentanyl smuggling. C5 gives oil and gas a free ride and allows the envirioment to go to shit as long as oil and gas are making money

if this is “pretending” to let trump win, I fail to see the difference to capitulating

finally, there will be no midterm nor can we bend over and give trump everything for 2 years hoping what? that the Dems will save us? tüat’s beyond naive

Bill C-5 is a lot of nodding and ‘trust me’ type arguments that get made by a liberal party that’s designed the legislation to be ‘reviewed’ after 5 years, meaning its highly likely that it’ll get used by another party - which could happen quite quickly even, given the minority govt status. Also, for its nation building projects clauses, ask yourself whose rights/interests are getting suppressed, and which nation owns the businesses that will be building those projects. It’s generally American owned / head quartered companies, getting assurances that the pesky locals rights won’t get in the way, from our own government. It is quite explicitly selling us out to foreign business interests.

Like even the reactors that Ontario (in partnership with a couple other provinces, I think) is building, are American made from GE and rely on Uranium that we ship down to the USA, they then enrich it and ship it back to us to power those plants. Or the Avro Arrow that Ford trumpets all the time, which was always a concept car / “platform” to sell component contracts to foreign companies. They put cheaper EV’s for everyone in Canada on hold, because Ford wanted to try and appease American car dealers. They’re aggressively pushing things like OpenBanking, even though practically every Canadian financial institution is outsourcing that functionality outside the country (even most “local” CUs now have their websites hosted by an Indian company) – some even “disclose” all their member information to India/US-based AI companies, because I guess there’s a low risk of it being regulated by the Carney govt: he’s very bullish on trusting big tech to be country agnostic, despite countless examples to the contrary. Suppressing privacy rights would be an easy way to green light large government AI integration, particularly with foreign company involvement/control. These things are not nation building, nor are pipelines owned by US interests. But those are the sorts of ‘projects’ that this kind of legislation will most likely target.

As Canadians we cannot expect Carney to fix the problems on his own. We, as individuals, need to stop buying American to the fullest extent that we can and if we can’t buy Canadian either buy other countries or not at all. It’s amazing the stuff that you don’t actually need but have been manipulated into buying due to American advertising. It is hard to do it overnight but with time, most American products can be resourced.

Ah my bad so you have some established right to indicate which of us can speak as to what’s best for the Canadian people (you) and the other can’t (me). Because…reasons?

I’m trying here man. I’m literally just trying to establish a baseline. You’re not making it easy

so you have some established right to indicate which of us can speak as to what’s best for the Canadian people (you) and the other can’t (me). Because…reasons?

What in what I wrote leads you to this?

I correctly noted this doesn’t affect you and that it does affect mamy.

Your position, as far as I can tell is:

If the reason for doing the wrong thing is “the jobs” then you need to rethink your reasoning.

… It’s bad policy to concede to the US right now.

I think that the jobs really do matter to a lot of people and that when the US has significantly more leverage you Canada has very few options.

Again, noting that your position really hurts a lot of people doesn’t mean you can’t have a position rather, it’s that you support a position that really hurts people.

If you let the tantruming baby have his way all the time, he’ll continue expecting to get his way all the time when he’s older