• Polyphilic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • Kichae@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          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.

      • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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.

      • Polyphilic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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

          • Polyphilic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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?

            • Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              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

              https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/politics/2026/07/07/pm-carney-poaches-conservative-mp-in-latest-batch-of-senate-appointments/

              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.

              • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                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.

              • Polyphilic@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                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.

                • Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  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.

  • Sailor Anarres@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    People declaring “it is wartime” are ignoring he is using this to destroy the planet faster and throw indigenous rights in the trash.

  • Olive@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    If he was governing like it’s wartime, where’s the explosion of social and affordable housing?

    • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That was all post war policies to address the shortages from people migrating to urban centers.

  • JustDorky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m getting increasingly uncomfortable with François-Philippe Champagne’s record… There may not be proof of personal corruption, but there are enough conflict-of-interest and oversight concerns that people should be paying closer attention: the Alto situation involving his partner, federal funding received by his father’s company while a conflict screen was supposedly in place, and the massive SDTC governance failure under his department.

    Now the government is eliminating the Underused Housing Tax and the luxury tax on private aircraft and expensive vessels.

    Who benefits from that? Foreign owners of underused Canadian homes, wealthy buyers of private planes and yachts, and the industries selling those assets. Ordinary Canadians receive little or no direct benefit, while the government gives up hundreds of millions in revenue.