I think he's trying to plan out a delay until the next PM comes in and then see if he can establish a rapport if its someone new (i.e. not Freeland) and/or test the mettle of the new PM by doubling down on the threats of more tariffs.
The articles say that the conversation lasted 50 mins, I view that as a positive. I assume that it means there was some back and forth and some potential agreements and seeking out further clarifications. The US news sources that they may talk again today, which leads me to speculate that there were some takeaways/follow ups/decisions to be made before coming together again and see if something can be worked out.
Good luck with that.
guess his advisors forgot to tell him we have a fixed election law
Like last time. He declared a win on something he already had lol.
Yes, briefing by dunces and yes people.
I bet it was a very stern talking to.
Slices of time isn't the way to do it. Maybe try plotting the positions of all the presidents and presidential candidates and senior Congress positions (majority/minority leader, etc)? I suspect you'll get closer to 99%.Points have validity, but respond to the question as what temporal frame should we be considering the relationship of trust? So back to Truman/Roosevelt times, and see Trump as a small blip of less than ~10%, so say…let’s be 90% confident that things will stabilize after Trump (be that 2028 or…2032?). Will Putin/Russia’s influence end with Trump? The circle of previous trust will be fully re-established? So a metaphoric pillow-biting is the best COA?
It's kinda low hanging fruit. I notice this over night brand of Patriotism turns into "take away their citizenship!" pretty fast.
Trudeau could throw billions more dollars into the border “problem” and put 10 thousand of our military on border patrol, and still that wouldn’t be enough. It’s a non-issue and Trump knows it. As always he has taken a basic truth, spun it into a great exaggeration and followed it up with embellishment after embellishment.
www.arcticgateway.com
www.travelandtourworld.com
MAGA (however people choose to define it) isn't conservativism. I again remind readers that Trump spent most of his life leaning Democratic, and when he ran in the primaries in 2016 many conservatives questioned his suitability on the basis of that. His signature aims right now are squarely in Democratic traditions. What "conservativism" is doesn't change because someone tries to misappropriate the definition.
The editors of Wikipedia are not useful or reliable arbiters of definitions on political matters.Oh it’s definitely complicated.
Trumpism - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
It will likely outlast him. It would be naive to think that this is just a 4year phenomenon and that everything will be fine after.
I agree - but going ahead and adding something of substance to the border 'issue' for the mere optics of doing it, to highlight to those of any intelligence in the US, 'See, no matter what we do, Trump is going to say its not enough'. And we then go the route of the World Trade Organization, which we did either today or yesterday, and file a formal compliant. Will it amount to anything, maybe yes or maybe no, but we do it by the book. Which again will highlight to anyone in the US with intelligence that Trump is an idoit.
Predictable and predicted. Now if Canadian leaders would just keep their nerve, suspend measures that are going to worsen the situation for consumers on both sides of the border, and let other people under pressure solve the problem for us.
Easily dismissed but not being very intellectually honest on the subject if you ignore the sources cited. The definitions are there and are being studied by various institutions. Whether you accept that is on you.
His irrationality is not what will persist. You missed the point.
