Carney has quite a unique opportunity for massive public spending that would have never been popular in any other case. The US always kept Canada well enough that the economy was "good enough" with declining infrastructure and underinvestment (capital fleeing to better return in the states).
Now that he can claim to have no choice and people are really mad, then he can even force retirement funds to invest massively here through those "nationnaly important projects". If successful that would seriously boost our stagnant productivity and economy.
Yes it's a reflection of the WWE, a great excuse to trample indiginous lands yet again. The political class should be required to wear leotards only, this way you can know their true nature.
I don't see how Canada can trust us again without a major cultural and legal shift in the US. The fact is that any president can, apparently, unilaterally shred international friendships, and 30%-40% of Americans will cheer it on.
I would love a return to normalcy, but Americans need to make sure, really sure this can't happen again.
The real problem is not just that, but that america chose to re-elect him. One time can be dismissed as a fluke or temporary situation. The reelection showed that this will be the status quo moving forward.
I'd agree in the context that this wasn't necessarily a case of driven by natural forces of the universe rather than some key events that could have been better addressed to hold them off. And the best way to do that is lots of sunshine and awareness.
IMHO politics is two distinct things: control of law and the circus of those who vie to take that power. Everybody focuses on the circus because that's where the media points to and is the most engaging.
But it's the former that actually matters, and it's boring, slow, and opaque, but literally a matter of life and death to every citizen of the union.
One final thought: the creation of literal Red vs Blue was a masterclass in division and distraction. It's crazy-making to watch it play out from the sidelines.
Things were still pretty normal for a long time after all that and pretty stable. No matter what side you were on, when your side lost at least the winner, at least for major offices, was competent.
Conservative commentator P.J. O'Rourke summed it up nicely in 2016 when as a panelist on NPR's "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" announced
> I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
That's how it was up to 2016, long after those things you cite had been in effect. Even if you thought some candidate with a chance at winning national office was wrong on everything they were at least wrong within normal parameters.
Something happened between 2008 and 2016 that enabled the current situation.
How is anybody on the sidelines with this? Every single person in the world is affected by it in some way, thanks to globalization. An Iran war wasn't inevitable. (Other than the uncontacted tribes, which are still affected by the effects of global warming.)
Yeah, as a Canadian I was willing to accept that 2016 was some sort of screw-up, but 2024 really sealed the deal. It told me that many Americans desired the constant chaos and classless antagonism.
As a Canadian, I love the American people but I feel like making these changes is a matter of national security. It's not really about TRUMP or Democrats or Republicans, it's a bigger directional change in Canada.
I think this was a much needed wake up call, perhaps a way to shed our naivete.
For years we have coupled ourselves to United States without thinking twice and it turns out that this was not a good idea.
I think we are going to see a very different Canada in the next decade or so. We will always maintain trade with United States but operate under another foreign policy.
I still feel like Canada is vulnerable, hopefully our government accelerates securing the nation on all fronts: military, trade, cyber and borders.
Most don’t see it as Trump’s fault. The trade agreement between the US and Canada allowed both sides to renegotiate the terms every six years. It also allowed both sides to withdraw if those negotiations failed. Trump simply took that option and proposed to renegotiate, which Canada rejected. So Trump took the obvious next step, exactly as anticipated by the treaty itself, and withdrew from it. Nobody should have been surprised by that.
Most Americans don’t have a problem with the content of Trump’s proposed treaty either. It would have lowered Canada’s tariffs on US dairy products down from 400% to whatever the US charges on Canadian dairy products. It would have allowed US banks to enter the Canadian market just as Canadian banks are allowed to operate in the US. Etc, etc.
Canada's effective tariff on dairy products is 0%. If your strongest complaint about the agreement is a tariff that has never been collected and has no prospects of ever being collected for the life of the agreement...
I wasn’t complaining about the agreement specifically, merely recounting what those who support Trump see.
That said, saying that the tariff is never collected is itself misleading. The importers know about the quota, and naturally they avoid going over it. It’s a restraint on trade either way and Trump proposed getting rid of it.
USMCA/CUSMA has an exit clause. Trump has not exercised that. The treaty is expected to be honoured by both sides during the reevaluation phase. Trump did not do that either. He simply violated the treaty.
As Carney has said, this President's signature is apparently in pencil. If you violate agreements you yourself signed, don't be surprised if people stop trusting you.
Finally, if the current trade deal was so awful... Trump negotiated that. One has to ask, what would it take for you to hold your glorious leader accountable for something he did?
Come on this is not just about trade disputes, though that side of things is also deeply screwed up.
Maybe some Americans don't take all the "51st State" and annexation talk that's become a full-on party line seriously, but Canadians are perfectly in their rights and sense to take it seriously and literally.
I actually disagree with you there. Trump is an open book. Literally, he published a book called “The Art of the Deal” where he described exactly how he negotiates. Anyone who doesn’t know at least the outline of what’s in that book is working at an extreme disadvantage. Go check out a copy from your local library!
First, he decides what he wants. He does this in advance specifically so that he can avoid agreeing to any deal that gives him less. Then he asks for the moon, knowing that the other party won’t want to give it all up. Instead he wants them to negotiate him down. He will agree to almost any deal that gives him what he wants, but of course hopes that they’ll give him more than that.
So when Trump says that Canada should join the US he is asking for the moon. He knows that Canada would never actually agree to it. It’s not an unjustifiable position; he can offer arguments about why they should (it simplifies the defense of the continent, it eliminates the expense of maintaining the border, it eliminates the possibility of trade barriers between us, etc, etc), but he expects to be talked down from that position. Obviously Canada should at minimum demand to be brought in as multiple states rather than as one oversized one. Or Canada could just offer to lower tariffs instead. It’s up to them.
So Canadians who took these statements “seriously and literally” were in fact overreacting.
Sure - some of what you have said has merit, however Trump has also initiated trade wars with pretty much every other country at the same time. He took advantage of the allowance to renegotiate and then instead of just keeping it within NAFTA, has expanded to a global scale.
The whole idea behind tariffs was to replace income taxes with them. The bonus was realizing that he could weaponize it.
Tariffs today have one real value only: protecting domestic industry. And to do that correctly, it needs to be thoughtful, consistent (legislated rather than by executive order), and coordinated with the industries they are designed to protect.
The US hasn't withdrawn from CUSMA. On July 1st it declined to extend the agreement past 2036, which isn't the same thing. The deal stays in force until 2036 with annual reviews, and no withdrawal notice has been given.
It was also the US, not Canada, that declined to renew. Canada and Mexico both pushed for extension with the same administration that renegotiated NAFTA into CUSMA only a few years ago. So what changed exactly?
Also, the 6 year review is about whether to extend the term. Withdrawal is a separate clause that a nation can use at any time on six months' notice. As I understand it the treaty doesn't set up "if negotiations fail, then withdraw" mechanism but IANAL.
The 400% dairy figure is incredbily inflated. The steep tariffs, roughly 200-300% depending on the product, apply only above quota, and in quota imports come into the states without duty. The US also runs its own dairy quotas, and it's incredibly disingenuous to portray Canada as the overbearing protectionist entity in a scenario where Americans twice elected a leader running on an overtly and relatively unprecedented (in modern times anyways) protectionist policy.
> The Canadian government made the soup themselves.
On this we are in full agreement. The integration of the Canadian economy into the American one has placed Canada in a precarious place and only further decoupling from America and seeking trading partners abroad will change that.
> The US hasn't withdrawn from CUSMA. On July 1st it declined to extend the agreement past 2036, which isn't the same thing. The deal stays in force until 2036 with annual reviews, and no withdrawal notice has been given.
> Also, the 6 year review is about whether to extend the term. Withdrawal is a separate clause that a nation can use at any time on six months' notice.
These are good corrections; I was merely oversimplifying. The main point is that what Trump is doing is not some kind of horrible betrayal, he is simply using the terms of the treaty as written. The treaty explicitly specifies how and when either party can renegotiate, decline to renew, and withdraw. You could argue that the treaty ought to have been more permanent than that, but then your beef is not with Trump but with the Canadians who agreed to the treaty as written.
> The fact is that any president can, apparently, unilaterally shred international friendships, and 30%-40% of Americans will cheer it on.
That's not the problem.
The real problem is that the political establishment let things get so out of whack that someone like Trump could enjoy a large amount of support and get elected. If actual issues experienced by Americans were getting addressed in a satisfactory way, none of this would have happened.
But instead of that we got TINA and Trump.
> I would love a return to normalcy, but Americans need to make sure, really sure this can't happen again.
Easy: just repeal democracy. Make elected officials advisors at best, and vest all power in unelected officials that will uphold the status quo.
> If actual issues experienced by Americans were getting addressed in a satisfactory way, none of this would have happened.
That might be america's problem but its not my problem. It doesn't really matter on the outside what dynamics lead to trump. It only matters that US foreign policy has taken a turn, the turn seems permanent, and we can no longer trust that our interests are aligned with the new management.
> That might be america's problem but its not my problem.
I was responding to a self-identified American wishing America would return to the prior status quo. It seems like you're in the wrong subthread.
> It doesn't really matter on the outside what dynamics lead to trump.
It's worth noting those dynamics aren't unique to the US.
> It only matters that US foreign policy has taken a turn, the turn seems permanent, and we can no longer trust that our interests are aligned with the new management.
It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack). Some of the vibes I pick up around those topics come off as entitled, which is is not a good look.
> It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack)
yeah, that is how being a hegemon works. There are benefits and drawbacks to that, but lets not pretend like USA didn't get a lot of benefits out of the arrangement.
In any case, seems like that era is mostly coming to an end.
> The real problem is that the political establishment let things get so out of whack that someone like Trump could enjoy a large amount of support and get elected.
I agree with you and I wish more people would understand that Trump is only a symptom of the issue.
Its the same in Europe where everyone is somehow discovering in 2026 that the far-right and far-left parties actually want to do what they say they will do if they get in power.
Instead of addressing the concerns of the population, all they do is talk about how bad these parties would be and try every which way to contain them except never trying to even understand or fix the issues these people are complaining about.
It was the same strategy used by Macron in France in 2017 and 2022.
Step 1: Pretend you care and tinker on the margins but fundamentally don't change anything.
Step 2: Paint the opposition on the left and right as monsters that will bring chaos and disorder to the country.
Step 3: Present yourself as the only one capable of containing said chaos.
In one word: TINA
Except TINA is no longer working and the mainstream parties are being challenged a lot more because people have trusted them for so long and they are no longer interested in waiting for them to actually deliver on what they promised to do years ago.
So you get Reform in the UK, One Nation in Australia, National Rally in France, the AFD in Germany, Swedish democrats in Sweden and much more....
The parties in charge could have tried to address the issues that are fueling the rise of the far-right across Europe, they could have listened to the concerns of their citizens even if they did not agree with their ideas.
Instead, they have let the situation deteriorate and portrayed themselves as the only solution to the problems they never addressed and it backfired spectacularly.
I'm Canadian. (Full disclosure: an immigrant, like many others here)
Are 30%-40% of Americans really cheering for shredding of the friendship with Canada? Is that supported by some specific survey or are we just looking at approval ratings or some proxy?
Isn't this more or less normal for the USA in the broader perspective? Certainly had some very weird presidents in the past? We had things like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement
I feel like we're just not living in normal times. The lack of normalcy is social media, conspiracy theories, politics. This isn't simply a US-Canada relationship question and "return to normalcy" isn't really just about "how do we ensure a certain level of quality of leadership". I'm not even sure what's normal any more ;)
"Our latest survey finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the United States an enemy country, up 15 points from June 2025. At the same time, 64% say their impression of the United States would change if Donald Trump were no longer president."
I find this insane. Also the weighting towards 55+, male, Quebec, is interesting. It says something about how humans are easy to influence IMO. Not exactly a surprise I guess looking at humanity as a whole but something I would have hoped we had some immunity to in free western societies.
US foreign policy has been pretty consistent since the end of world war 2. Whatever you may think of what is going on, it is a significant departure from traditional us policy.
And if you go to the 18th century we were both owned by Britian. idk what the point is of going that far back. The point is that America was pursuing one policy for about 80 years and now is pursuing a different policy. As a result everyone is re-evaluating the relationship in light of this.
I fact checked with AI as one does these days and at least the AGI supports you with the first Trump admin being what it identifies as a real change in policy since WW-II:
"In 2018, the Trump administration used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—a rarely used Cold War-era law—to declare Canadian steel and aluminum a "national security threat" to the United States. These tariffs were not applied because Canadian steel companies were breaking dumping laws. They were deployed as broad, sweeping coercion to force Canada to the table to renegotiate the entire NAFTA agreement under threat of economic damage."
So yes. I agree there is an actual change vs. the post WW-II trajectory. At least in the public sphere. I don't know what used to happen behind closed doors. AI here says a lot of power struggles have happened (some specific examples but I'll spare you) but not in public. But argues that the shifting of those into the public sphere is a real change. And I agree with the AI overlords.
The only country in the entire world that has a name that contains the word ‘America’, the United States of America.
I don’t know why people think they’re clever when they pose this rhetorical question, particularly when someone is stating their nationality. The demonym ‘American’ refers to a citizen of the United States of America.
Unless that nostalgia is working in an office, not taking climate change seriously, insisting his ministers use British spelling and wear black (not brown!) shoes, or having the King read the speech from the throne.
Carney's status as some sort of visionary is a sham. Just another old fart with no new ideas.
Because I coincidentally lost access to my main account recently (never put in the e-mail field lol) and had to make a new one. This is the same name with the vowels removed - so not just keyboard-mashed username.
Better to just believe everyone who disagrees with you must be a bot, though.
When your population reaches 100 million, as is the plan... how much nostalgia could there even be? 70 million of those people won't remember any previous era, because they just stepped off the plane. For that matter, what sort of livelihood could there be? Are you planning on some resurgence of Canadian manufacturing? Steel maybe? Textiles? Maybe a film industry? Will you all be lawyers?
So someone Carney knows believes something, but no indication whether carney agrees? That is weak sauce.
More importantly, they are talking over a time frame of 2100. Doubling the population over the course of 75 years is probably fine. The economy can handle it over that time frame.
It's closer to tripling your population. Which is impossible if your fertility rate's below replacement... well, unless you import enough people that those imported outnumber those already there by 2 to 1.
I first learned of it here on HN, someone submitted it last year.
>The economy can handle it over that time frame.
What economy? Are you planning on finding jobs for tens of millions more people? One might say that you don't have enough jobs to go around as it is.
Sure, last year and the year before it slowed down, after several years of increasing record highs. 2021 - 2024 all had higher rates. We had over 2% for consecutive years.
More than 20% of Canada's current population was born outside of Canada. That's a substantial block of people!
I'm not against immigration by any means, but still. Immigrant Canadians are strongly likely to outnumber born Canadians in my lifetime
I asked some of my Indigenous friends here how that worked out for them and they said not great
Over the next 50 years, Canada is set to benefit immensely from climate change. Trade routes will open up, huge amounts of land will become arable, and resource extraction will become easier.
>For that matter, what sort of livelihood could there be? Are you planning on some resurgence of Canadian manufacturing? Steel maybe? Textiles? Maybe a film industry? Will you all be lawyers?
That's right only America is capable of providing a livelihood and productive economy for its citizens. Silly Canada, just become a client state and let America make all those hard decisions for you.
It's not at all clear to most Americans what the consequences are. This pipeline, for example, sounds like something Americans should welcome because it will finally allow Canada to offer its oil to the world market in significant quantities. It will allow Canada to export significantly more than they do now, pushing down prices. It wasn't built until now purely because of internal Canadian environmental concerns. If Canadians think it's a good idea to now destroy vast amounts of their forest to get to some of the most difficult to process oil in the world, then that's what it is and they get to make some money as a benefit. But it doesn't seem at all like some kind of rational reaction to American foreign policy.
The pipeline will both increase the price Canada gets for its oil by reducing the share the railways get from the price, and (very slightly) decrease the world price because of increased supply.
Splitting the earnings differently between Canada and Canadian railway companies is a zero–sum game. It just changes which company makes what percentage of the profit. The real win for Canada will be additional production. The Prime Minister of Canada stated that the new pipeline would allow them to “export an additional 1 million barrels a day to growing markets in Asia.” That’s a net benefit for everyone. It’s additional profits for Canadian society and increased supply on the world market.
The Trump presidency, and his absurd trade wars, are deeply unpopular in the US. I'd be shocked if most Canadians don't understand this fully and see Trumpism for the personality-driven anomaly that it is.
It isn't an anomaly. He was elected twice. He has done real damage. Hell, 1/3 of Americans don't even vote. Whether or not most Americans feel bad about it doesn't matter. Actual damage is being done.
Tariffs may be more politically feasible moving forward, but not these extreme tariffs and sudden trade wars that are driven by Trump's temper tantrums and benefit no one.
Pollsters estimate that Republicans still have >30% chance of retaining the Senate majority. (Better than what pollsters gave Trump before he won in 2016.)
This isn't a deeply unpopular anomaly. This is a significant chunk of America, and they may easily regain the majority if the economy improves in a few years (or if it worsens further under a Democratic president).
I agree. I would also say America is the way it's always been. With good and bad. America is not homogeneous. It is not simple. It is complex. It has and have always had, Neo-Nazis, and human rights champions. Poverty and wealth. Amazing educational institutes, and schools where kids stab each other. Conspiracy theorists, and smart reasonable people.
Reducing America to one simple statement is not possible.
The democrats have shown little desire or ability to reverse GOP foreign policy once they get into power. They normalize those policies and keep the seat warm for the next mad man.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
American re-elected him, despite the cronyism, jan 6, mental decline, etc. Combined with the democrats are so self defeating and they also repeatedly poked at trade issues (the loooooong running softwood lumber disputes, Keystone XL, "buy American" provisions that ignored NAFTA/USMCA for projects that were going ahead w/o the provisions, etc).
We know what populism is (we've experienced and are experiencing it ourselves) and know that it is usually fleeting, but we don't trust another "smarter" nativist president to come along and screw us again.
Also, there's an internal game going on here. Canada has (institutionally) took the "easy" way out of controversial projects, often due to our proximity to the US. This has meant that when some projects run into a greater than normal amount of political resistance (eg environmental fights against pipelines or LNG terminals), the default has usually been to back off. But Trump has in a way given cover to actually move forward.
I don't expect the next president to "cave" so easily. Even before he was sworn in, republicans had their messaging in full swing against Obama about the deficit. I fully expect the same thing to hammer the next president on trade if they're a democrat.
"most Canadians" as a demographic is unable to grasp complexity. They are being rallied to the flag and they rally. Like everyone else these days they all have their echo chambers. It's an easy sell. This is just human nature.
Current day politics are about polarization. More so than ever. There is no room for nuance. This is what worked for Trump and this is what worked for Carney and the Liberals in Canada. The Liberals didn't win on some brilliant policies they simply won on anti-American feelings.
This is not a statement on who is right or wrong. There are certainly many aspects of Trump's behaviour here that most would say are wrong. The problem is when we lose nuance and debate we can't make progress. But a leader in today's world that introduces nuance loses to the leader that polarizes. Dragging us all down.
The reality of trade and geography will shorten the timeframe.
Remember that the Canadians claimed to care a lot about climate change, and sending goods to Asian or Europe has a greater environmental cost than shipping to America.
Do you really think the Canadian government will stop advertising on YouTube and Facebook? The Canadian PM mainly does news with American companies...
as a canadian, i'd suggest that reestablishing a healthy relationship might require more than hope.
but from what i can see, the american reaction to this, even from the anti-trump crowd within america, is to basically shrug and assume that canada will quickly forgive and forget.
Yeah, I don't think they understand that we're not "with them" either, and while ending hostilities would be viewed favorably, no one here is sympathizing with the American left either. You can only be so patient with the idea that parading around with protest signs is actually doing anything.
Many Americans fail to realize that this isn't merely about trade, or even primarily about trade. Trump has continually made belittling comments about Canada, posted AI videos of him beating up Carney, threatened to annex the country, etc.. This plays well to his base, but has derailed what would have otherwise been a discussion about trade.
Canada has continually accepted bad trade deals from the U.S.. They've been imposed on us by both democratic and republican governments. If the U.S, for example, says "Canada, you have too many trees. Our tree farmers can't compete so we're tariffing those.", there's not much we can do. We do have rather a lot of trees. If Trump had been respectful, he'd have his updated treaty by now and Canadian goods would likely be under some degree of permanent tariff's. Thanks to Trump running his mouth, the trade dispute became a matter of national sovereignty that has been under a microscope for the last year and a half. Trump's rhetoric has made it impossible for Canadian politicians to capitulate. Trade is, ideally, about both sides winning, but Trump has formulated things so that the U.S. can't win if Canada doesn't lose. Canadians are now unwilling to accept another loss. The result is an impasse.
The problem going forward is that Trump is still continually insulting and threatening the U.S.'s closest allies, and Americans have done nothing to stop him. Not one thing of substance. You can have impeachments like hobbits have breakfasts, but nothing ever seems to touch Trump. He does what he wants. The U.S. needs to have its Magna Carta moment and rein in its king. Your system has failed to the point where we'd rather not live on the same continent as you. If we could saw it off at the 49th and paddle our part of the continent closer to either Asia or Europe, we would.
As a US citizen, you should be angrier than Canadians are. Your nation is poorer, embroiled in unnecessary wars, and has lost significant international influence because of Trump. The consequences of what he has done will take decades to play out, and there's little the next president can do to mitigate them. Donald Trump is Making America Go Away, and Americans are continuing to let him do it.
>As a US citizen, I just want to add that I hope some day we can reestablish a healthy relationship with our neighbors. These articles are saddening.
Canadian here. It'll be at least a generation, if it ever happens at all. I have two kids in elementary school and every single one of their peers is talking about America as a threat. More than once I've had one of my kids ask me if it's true Donald Trump wants to take over Canada. It's a whole generation of children growing up resentful of America, viewing it as a threat rather than an ally. Those attitudes aren't going to just evaporate after Trump leaves office.
I took no end of downvotes and snarky comments from arrogant Americans on this fucking website for suggesting that the old days are not coming back, largely because Canadians have realized that Trump is broadly representative of Americans. He is a symptom of an underlying sickness. The problem is Americans themselves.
To wit: Harris got 75 million votes in 2024[0]. The total voting-age population is roughly 270 million [1], which means less than a third of the US electorate voted against Trump. The remaining two thirds either voted for him or were sufficiently unbothered so as to not vote at all. So we see a bunch of Americans in the media or on socials crying crocodile tears about how tHeIr AlLiEs ArE sO vAlUaBlE tO tHeM and traitors in the Alberta government notwithstanding I think broadly speaking Canadians realize it's bullshit and have moved on. Any treaty the US signs is not worth the paper it's printed on.
This schism is permanent, and I think Americans have yet to comprehend just how much foreign attitudes towards America have moved over the last year and a half.
> it continues to absolutely boggle my mind how few people realize that refineries in the US Rockies, Plains, Midwest/Great Lakes rely so heavily on millions of barrels of Canadian crude oil every day and have since the 1950s
> if Canada were to pull the plug on sending the US oil- even for a week- states like MT, ID, WY, UT, ND, SD, NE, OK, MO, IA, MN, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH, KY, and TN would nearly immediately see huge problems.
> most people in the Midwest have heard of BP's refinery in Whiting, Indiana. The largest in the region, 440,000bpd of capacity. When it goes down, it's often mentioned. Do most know ~85% of Whiting's feedstock is Canadian oil? just imagine if Canada pulled the plug.
Carney has quite a unique opportunity for massive public spending that would have never been popular in any other case. The US always kept Canada well enough that the economy was "good enough" with declining infrastructure and underinvestment (capital fleeing to better return in the states).
Now that he can claim to have no choice and people are really mad, then he can even force retirement funds to invest massively here through those "nationnaly important projects". If successful that would seriously boost our stagnant productivity and economy.
[dead]
Of course, that is what is prearranged with Trump. Trump threatens Canada, Carney has a reason to implement unpopular measures.
Trump threatens the EU, the EU has a reason to implement popular measures.
Trump is the salesman and Reality TV host, the plans are made elsewhere.
Yes it's a reflection of the WWE, a great excuse to trample indiginous lands yet again. The political class should be required to wear leotards only, this way you can know their true nature.
You didn't need a throwaway account for that statement. HN karma is worthless anyway.
So many people come and give doomer statements on the reality of the US and Canada becoming increasingly at odds.
As a US citizen, I just want to add that I hope some day we can reestablish a healthy relationship with our neighbors. These articles are saddening.
Disclaimer: I'm American
I don't see how Canada can trust us again without a major cultural and legal shift in the US. The fact is that any president can, apparently, unilaterally shred international friendships, and 30%-40% of Americans will cheer it on.
I would love a return to normalcy, but Americans need to make sure, really sure this can't happen again.
The real problem is not just that, but that america chose to re-elect him. One time can be dismissed as a fluke or temporary situation. The reelection showed that this will be the status quo moving forward.
The real problem is not just that, but that these changes were going to happen regardless, he’s an accelerant
> these changes were going to happen regardless
I'd agree in the context that this wasn't necessarily a case of driven by natural forces of the universe rather than some key events that could have been better addressed to hold them off. And the best way to do that is lots of sunshine and awareness.
Those key elements being:
The Powell Memo -- https://www.inequalitymedia.org/explainers/v/the-powell-memo
Reagan's embracement of evangelicals (ignoring Barry Goldwater's warning)
Rush Limbaugh's unfettered demonization industrial complex
Bill Clinton's sellout of labor to the corporate class -- https://www.theglobalist.com/bill-clinton-hillary-pivoted-am...
IMHO politics is two distinct things: control of law and the circus of those who vie to take that power. Everybody focuses on the circus because that's where the media points to and is the most engaging.
But it's the former that actually matters, and it's boring, slow, and opaque, but literally a matter of life and death to every citizen of the union.
One final thought: the creation of literal Red vs Blue was a masterclass in division and distraction. It's crazy-making to watch it play out from the sidelines.
Things were still pretty normal for a long time after all that and pretty stable. No matter what side you were on, when your side lost at least the winner, at least for major offices, was competent.
Conservative commentator P.J. O'Rourke summed it up nicely in 2016 when as a panelist on NPR's "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" announced
> I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
That's how it was up to 2016, long after those things you cite had been in effect. Even if you thought some candidate with a chance at winning national office was wrong on everything they were at least wrong within normal parameters.
Something happened between 2008 and 2016 that enabled the current situation.
How is anybody on the sidelines with this? Every single person in the world is affected by it in some way, thanks to globalization. An Iran war wasn't inevitable. (Other than the uncontacted tribes, which are still affected by the effects of global warming.)
Yeah, as a Canadian I was willing to accept that 2016 was some sort of screw-up, but 2024 really sealed the deal. It told me that many Americans desired the constant chaos and classless antagonism.
[dead]
As a Canadian, I love the American people but I feel like making these changes is a matter of national security. It's not really about TRUMP or Democrats or Republicans, it's a bigger directional change in Canada.
I think this was a much needed wake up call, perhaps a way to shed our naivete.
For years we have coupled ourselves to United States without thinking twice and it turns out that this was not a good idea.
I think we are going to see a very different Canada in the next decade or so. We will always maintain trade with United States but operate under another foreign policy.
I still feel like Canada is vulnerable, hopefully our government accelerates securing the nation on all fronts: military, trade, cyber and borders.
Even when Trump is gone, there will always be people like Navarro around, telling us to get the hell out of your country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBw2jXYDPJA
Most don’t see it as Trump’s fault. The trade agreement between the US and Canada allowed both sides to renegotiate the terms every six years. It also allowed both sides to withdraw if those negotiations failed. Trump simply took that option and proposed to renegotiate, which Canada rejected. So Trump took the obvious next step, exactly as anticipated by the treaty itself, and withdrew from it. Nobody should have been surprised by that.
Most Americans don’t have a problem with the content of Trump’s proposed treaty either. It would have lowered Canada’s tariffs on US dairy products down from 400% to whatever the US charges on Canadian dairy products. It would have allowed US banks to enter the Canadian market just as Canadian banks are allowed to operate in the US. Etc, etc.
The Canadian government made the soup themselves.
Canada's effective tariff on dairy products is 0%. If your strongest complaint about the agreement is a tariff that has never been collected and has no prospects of ever being collected for the life of the agreement...
I wasn’t complaining about the agreement specifically, merely recounting what those who support Trump see.
That said, saying that the tariff is never collected is itself misleading. The importers know about the quota, and naturally they avoid going over it. It’s a restraint on trade either way and Trump proposed getting rid of it.
They never come anywhere close to the limit so there is no reason for them to try to avoid hitting it.
USMCA/CUSMA has an exit clause. Trump has not exercised that. The treaty is expected to be honoured by both sides during the reevaluation phase. Trump did not do that either. He simply violated the treaty.
As Carney has said, this President's signature is apparently in pencil. If you violate agreements you yourself signed, don't be surprised if people stop trusting you.
Finally, if the current trade deal was so awful... Trump negotiated that. One has to ask, what would it take for you to hold your glorious leader accountable for something he did?
Come on this is not just about trade disputes, though that side of things is also deeply screwed up.
Maybe some Americans don't take all the "51st State" and annexation talk that's become a full-on party line seriously, but Canadians are perfectly in their rights and sense to take it seriously and literally.
I actually disagree with you there. Trump is an open book. Literally, he published a book called “The Art of the Deal” where he described exactly how he negotiates. Anyone who doesn’t know at least the outline of what’s in that book is working at an extreme disadvantage. Go check out a copy from your local library!
First, he decides what he wants. He does this in advance specifically so that he can avoid agreeing to any deal that gives him less. Then he asks for the moon, knowing that the other party won’t want to give it all up. Instead he wants them to negotiate him down. He will agree to almost any deal that gives him what he wants, but of course hopes that they’ll give him more than that.
So when Trump says that Canada should join the US he is asking for the moon. He knows that Canada would never actually agree to it. It’s not an unjustifiable position; he can offer arguments about why they should (it simplifies the defense of the continent, it eliminates the expense of maintaining the border, it eliminates the possibility of trade barriers between us, etc, etc), but he expects to be talked down from that position. Obviously Canada should at minimum demand to be brought in as multiple states rather than as one oversized one. Or Canada could just offer to lower tariffs instead. It’s up to them.
So Canadians who took these statements “seriously and literally” were in fact overreacting.
Sure - some of what you have said has merit, however Trump has also initiated trade wars with pretty much every other country at the same time. He took advantage of the allowance to renegotiate and then instead of just keeping it within NAFTA, has expanded to a global scale.
The whole idea behind tariffs was to replace income taxes with them. The bonus was realizing that he could weaponize it.
Tariffs today have one real value only: protecting domestic industry. And to do that correctly, it needs to be thoughtful, consistent (legislated rather than by executive order), and coordinated with the industries they are designed to protect.
This comment is full of misinformation.
The US hasn't withdrawn from CUSMA. On July 1st it declined to extend the agreement past 2036, which isn't the same thing. The deal stays in force until 2036 with annual reviews, and no withdrawal notice has been given.
It was also the US, not Canada, that declined to renew. Canada and Mexico both pushed for extension with the same administration that renegotiated NAFTA into CUSMA only a few years ago. So what changed exactly?
Also, the 6 year review is about whether to extend the term. Withdrawal is a separate clause that a nation can use at any time on six months' notice. As I understand it the treaty doesn't set up "if negotiations fail, then withdraw" mechanism but IANAL.
The 400% dairy figure is incredbily inflated. The steep tariffs, roughly 200-300% depending on the product, apply only above quota, and in quota imports come into the states without duty. The US also runs its own dairy quotas, and it's incredibly disingenuous to portray Canada as the overbearing protectionist entity in a scenario where Americans twice elected a leader running on an overtly and relatively unprecedented (in modern times anyways) protectionist policy.
> The Canadian government made the soup themselves.
On this we are in full agreement. The integration of the Canadian economy into the American one has placed Canada in a precarious place and only further decoupling from America and seeking trading partners abroad will change that.
https://cassels.com/insights/cusmsa-still-in-force-notwithst...
> The US hasn't withdrawn from CUSMA. On July 1st it declined to extend the agreement past 2036, which isn't the same thing. The deal stays in force until 2036 with annual reviews, and no withdrawal notice has been given.
> Also, the 6 year review is about whether to extend the term. Withdrawal is a separate clause that a nation can use at any time on six months' notice.
These are good corrections; I was merely oversimplifying. The main point is that what Trump is doing is not some kind of horrible betrayal, he is simply using the terms of the treaty as written. The treaty explicitly specifies how and when either party can renegotiate, decline to renew, and withdraw. You could argue that the treaty ought to have been more permanent than that, but then your beef is not with Trump but with the Canadians who agreed to the treaty as written.
> The fact is that any president can, apparently, unilaterally shred international friendships, and 30%-40% of Americans will cheer it on.
That's not the problem.
The real problem is that the political establishment let things get so out of whack that someone like Trump could enjoy a large amount of support and get elected. If actual issues experienced by Americans were getting addressed in a satisfactory way, none of this would have happened.
But instead of that we got TINA and Trump.
> I would love a return to normalcy, but Americans need to make sure, really sure this can't happen again.
Easy: just repeal democracy. Make elected officials advisors at best, and vest all power in unelected officials that will uphold the status quo.
> If actual issues experienced by Americans were getting addressed in a satisfactory way, none of this would have happened.
That might be america's problem but its not my problem. It doesn't really matter on the outside what dynamics lead to trump. It only matters that US foreign policy has taken a turn, the turn seems permanent, and we can no longer trust that our interests are aligned with the new management.
> That might be america's problem but its not my problem.
I was responding to a self-identified American wishing America would return to the prior status quo. It seems like you're in the wrong subthread.
> It doesn't really matter on the outside what dynamics lead to trump.
It's worth noting those dynamics aren't unique to the US.
> It only matters that US foreign policy has taken a turn, the turn seems permanent, and we can no longer trust that our interests are aligned with the new management.
It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack). Some of the vibes I pick up around those topics come off as entitled, which is is not a good look.
> It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack)
yeah, that is how being a hegemon works. There are benefits and drawbacks to that, but lets not pretend like USA didn't get a lot of benefits out of the arrangement.
In any case, seems like that era is mostly coming to an end.
> The real problem is that the political establishment let things get so out of whack that someone like Trump could enjoy a large amount of support and get elected.
I agree with you and I wish more people would understand that Trump is only a symptom of the issue.
Its the same in Europe where everyone is somehow discovering in 2026 that the far-right and far-left parties actually want to do what they say they will do if they get in power.
Instead of addressing the concerns of the population, all they do is talk about how bad these parties would be and try every which way to contain them except never trying to even understand or fix the issues these people are complaining about.
It was the same strategy used by Macron in France in 2017 and 2022.
Step 1: Pretend you care and tinker on the margins but fundamentally don't change anything. Step 2: Paint the opposition on the left and right as monsters that will bring chaos and disorder to the country. Step 3: Present yourself as the only one capable of containing said chaos.
In one word: TINA
Except TINA is no longer working and the mainstream parties are being challenged a lot more because people have trusted them for so long and they are no longer interested in waiting for them to actually deliver on what they promised to do years ago.
So you get Reform in the UK, One Nation in Australia, National Rally in France, the AFD in Germany, Swedish democrats in Sweden and much more....
The parties in charge could have tried to address the issues that are fueling the rise of the far-right across Europe, they could have listened to the concerns of their citizens even if they did not agree with their ideas.
Instead, they have let the situation deteriorate and portrayed themselves as the only solution to the problems they never addressed and it backfired spectacularly.
As Jack Kerouac said: After Me, the Deluge.
I'm Canadian. (Full disclosure: an immigrant, like many others here)
Are 30%-40% of Americans really cheering for shredding of the friendship with Canada? Is that supported by some specific survey or are we just looking at approval ratings or some proxy?
Isn't this more or less normal for the USA in the broader perspective? Certainly had some very weird presidents in the past? We had things like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement
I feel like we're just not living in normal times. The lack of normalcy is social media, conspiracy theories, politics. This isn't simply a US-Canada relationship question and "return to normalcy" isn't really just about "how do we ensure a certain level of quality of leadership". I'm not even sure what's normal any more ;)
https://leger360.com/in-the-news-canada-us-trade-war-canadia...
https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/OMNI_tradewa...
"Our latest survey finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the United States an enemy country, up 15 points from June 2025. At the same time, 64% say their impression of the United States would change if Donald Trump were no longer president."
I find this insane. Also the weighting towards 55+, male, Quebec, is interesting. It says something about how humans are easy to influence IMO. Not exactly a surprise I guess looking at humanity as a whole but something I would have hoped we had some immunity to in free western societies.
No, most Americans would be surprised to learn that Canadians consider the US an enemy.
US foreign policy has been pretty consistent since the end of world war 2. Whatever you may think of what is going on, it is a significant departure from traditional us policy.
However if you like at 19th century history America has always coveted Canada.
In fact the very foundation of Canada is a response to the US threat.
And if you go to the 18th century we were both owned by Britian. idk what the point is of going that far back. The point is that America was pursuing one policy for about 80 years and now is pursuing a different policy. As a result everyone is re-evaluating the relationship in light of this.
I fact checked with AI as one does these days and at least the AGI supports you with the first Trump admin being what it identifies as a real change in policy since WW-II: "In 2018, the Trump administration used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—a rarely used Cold War-era law—to declare Canadian steel and aluminum a "national security threat" to the United States. These tariffs were not applied because Canadian steel companies were breaking dumping laws. They were deployed as broad, sweeping coercion to force Canada to the table to renegotiate the entire NAFTA agreement under threat of economic damage."
So yes. I agree there is an actual change vs. the post WW-II trajectory. At least in the public sphere. I don't know what used to happen behind closed doors. AI here says a lot of power struggles have happened (some specific examples but I'll spare you) but not in public. But argues that the shifting of those into the public sphere is a real change. And I agree with the AI overlords.
[flagged]
The only country in the entire world that has a name that contains the word ‘America’, the United States of America.
I don’t know why people think they’re clever when they pose this rhetorical question, particularly when someone is stating their nationality. The demonym ‘American’ refers to a citizen of the United States of America.
As a canadian, regardless of how sad it might be, we cannot stake our livlihoods on nostalgia for a past that may never come again.
Unless that nostalgia is working in an office, not taking climate change seriously, insisting his ministers use British spelling and wear black (not brown!) shoes, or having the King read the speech from the throne.
Carney's status as some sort of visionary is a sham. Just another old fart with no new ideas.
Why is every anti-Carney post on here from an account created an hour ago with a keyboard-mashed username?
Because I coincidentally lost access to my main account recently (never put in the e-mail field lol) and had to make a new one. This is the same name with the vowels removed - so not just keyboard-mashed username.
Better to just believe everyone who disagrees with you must be a bot, though.
When your population reaches 100 million, as is the plan... how much nostalgia could there even be? 70 million of those people won't remember any previous era, because they just stepped off the plane. For that matter, what sort of livelihood could there be? Are you planning on some resurgence of Canadian manufacturing? Steel maybe? Textiles? Maybe a film industry? Will you all be lawyers?
Whose plan is it to reach 100 million? By what date? This is the first time i've heard of any plan to double our population.
Last year our population only grew by 0.5%. We have a long time before it doubles.
Century Initiative. Been living under a rock? Go check out who Mark Wiseman is, his relationship to Carney.
So someone Carney knows believes something, but no indication whether carney agrees? That is weak sauce.
More importantly, they are talking over a time frame of 2100. Doubling the population over the course of 75 years is probably fine. The economy can handle it over that time frame.
It's closer to tripling your population. Which is impossible if your fertility rate's below replacement... well, unless you import enough people that those imported outnumber those already there by 2 to 1.
I first learned of it here on HN, someone submitted it last year.
>The economy can handle it over that time frame.
What economy? Are you planning on finding jobs for tens of millions more people? One might say that you don't have enough jobs to go around as it is.
Current population is 42 million, so it is closer to doubling than tripling.
Population almost exactly tripled in the last 75 years, though.
Sure, last year and the year before it slowed down, after several years of increasing record highs. 2021 - 2024 all had higher rates. We had over 2% for consecutive years.
More than 20% of Canada's current population was born outside of Canada. That's a substantial block of people!
I'm not against immigration by any means, but still. Immigrant Canadians are strongly likely to outnumber born Canadians in my lifetime
I asked some of my Indigenous friends here how that worked out for them and they said not great
There are proposals out there to increase the American population to 1 billion people. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Over the next 50 years, Canada is set to benefit immensely from climate change. Trade routes will open up, huge amounts of land will become arable, and resource extraction will become easier.
Whatever it is, it wont be under the thumb of the US. That is all anyone cares about now. Canadians want off the sinking ship.
>For that matter, what sort of livelihood could there be? Are you planning on some resurgence of Canadian manufacturing? Steel maybe? Textiles? Maybe a film industry? Will you all be lawyers?
That's right only America is capable of providing a livelihood and productive economy for its citizens. Silly Canada, just become a client state and let America make all those hard decisions for you.
I’ve read this comment four times over and I have no idea what your point is.
Canada has a massive amount of untapped potential, and it’s time we tap it.
It won't happen in our lifetime. American's are yet to fully understand the impact, it will take 50 years or more to go back to 2024.
It's not at all clear to most Americans what the consequences are. This pipeline, for example, sounds like something Americans should welcome because it will finally allow Canada to offer its oil to the world market in significant quantities. It will allow Canada to export significantly more than they do now, pushing down prices. It wasn't built until now purely because of internal Canadian environmental concerns. If Canadians think it's a good idea to now destroy vast amounts of their forest to get to some of the most difficult to process oil in the world, then that's what it is and they get to make some money as a benefit. But it doesn't seem at all like some kind of rational reaction to American foreign policy.
The Canadian oil is always 10-20% cheaper right now because it only has one buyer, if anything the price will just track the global market more
The pipeline will both increase the price Canada gets for its oil by reducing the share the railways get from the price, and (very slightly) decrease the world price because of increased supply.
Splitting the earnings differently between Canada and Canadian railway companies is a zero–sum game. It just changes which company makes what percentage of the profit. The real win for Canada will be additional production. The Prime Minister of Canada stated that the new pipeline would allow them to “export an additional 1 million barrels a day to growing markets in Asia.” That’s a net benefit for everyone. It’s additional profits for Canadian society and increased supply on the world market.
Ability to export more will lead to greater production.
The Trump presidency, and his absurd trade wars, are deeply unpopular in the US. I'd be shocked if most Canadians don't understand this fully and see Trumpism for the personality-driven anomaly that it is.
It isn't an anomaly. He was elected twice. He has done real damage. Hell, 1/3 of Americans don't even vote. Whether or not most Americans feel bad about it doesn't matter. Actual damage is being done.
They're unpopular, but we're apparently a fickle and short-memoried people with few real legal safeguards or principles.
Trump was deeply unpopular at the end of his first term too, and Americans still went back for a second bite.
We gotta look inward and, metaphorically speaking, go to rehab.
Gavin Newsom has promised to retain some of the tariffs if he's elected president in 2028.
Tariffs may be more politically feasible moving forward, but not these extreme tariffs and sudden trade wars that are driven by Trump's temper tantrums and benefit no one.
Pollsters estimate that Republicans still have >30% chance of retaining the Senate majority. (Better than what pollsters gave Trump before he won in 2016.)
This isn't a deeply unpopular anomaly. This is a significant chunk of America, and they may easily regain the majority if the economy improves in a few years (or if it worsens further under a Democratic president).
"America isn’t the way it is because Trump’s president. Trump’s president because America is the way it is." - David Cochrane
I agree. I would also say America is the way it's always been. With good and bad. America is not homogeneous. It is not simple. It is complex. It has and have always had, Neo-Nazis, and human rights champions. Poverty and wealth. Amazing educational institutes, and schools where kids stab each other. Conspiracy theorists, and smart reasonable people.
Reducing America to one simple statement is not possible.
The democrats have shown little desire or ability to reverse GOP foreign policy once they get into power. They normalize those policies and keep the seat warm for the next mad man.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
American re-elected him, despite the cronyism, jan 6, mental decline, etc. Combined with the democrats are so self defeating and they also repeatedly poked at trade issues (the loooooong running softwood lumber disputes, Keystone XL, "buy American" provisions that ignored NAFTA/USMCA for projects that were going ahead w/o the provisions, etc).
We know what populism is (we've experienced and are experiencing it ourselves) and know that it is usually fleeting, but we don't trust another "smarter" nativist president to come along and screw us again.
Also, there's an internal game going on here. Canada has (institutionally) took the "easy" way out of controversial projects, often due to our proximity to the US. This has meant that when some projects run into a greater than normal amount of political resistance (eg environmental fights against pipelines or LNG terminals), the default has usually been to back off. But Trump has in a way given cover to actually move forward.
I don't expect the next president to "cave" so easily. Even before he was sworn in, republicans had their messaging in full swing against Obama about the deficit. I fully expect the same thing to hammer the next president on trade if they're a democrat.
"most Canadians" as a demographic is unable to grasp complexity. They are being rallied to the flag and they rally. Like everyone else these days they all have their echo chambers. It's an easy sell. This is just human nature.
Current day politics are about polarization. More so than ever. There is no room for nuance. This is what worked for Trump and this is what worked for Carney and the Liberals in Canada. The Liberals didn't win on some brilliant policies they simply won on anti-American feelings.
This is not a statement on who is right or wrong. There are certainly many aspects of Trump's behaviour here that most would say are wrong. The problem is when we lose nuance and debate we can't make progress. But a leader in today's world that introduces nuance loses to the leader that polarizes. Dragging us all down.
The reality of trade and geography will shorten the timeframe.
Remember that the Canadians claimed to care a lot about climate change, and sending goods to Asian or Europe has a greater environmental cost than shipping to America.
Do you really think the Canadian government will stop advertising on YouTube and Facebook? The Canadian PM mainly does news with American companies...
as a canadian, i'd suggest that reestablishing a healthy relationship might require more than hope.
but from what i can see, the american reaction to this, even from the anti-trump crowd within america, is to basically shrug and assume that canada will quickly forgive and forget.
Yeah, I don't think they understand that we're not "with them" either, and while ending hostilities would be viewed favorably, no one here is sympathizing with the American left either. You can only be so patient with the idea that parading around with protest signs is actually doing anything.
I'd love to hear what you'd consider effective, honestly.
> As a US citizen, I just want to add that I hope some day we can reestablish a healthy relationship with our neighbors.
Just write "Thoughts and prayers!" and save us all some time.
Many Americans fail to realize that this isn't merely about trade, or even primarily about trade. Trump has continually made belittling comments about Canada, posted AI videos of him beating up Carney, threatened to annex the country, etc.. This plays well to his base, but has derailed what would have otherwise been a discussion about trade.
Canada has continually accepted bad trade deals from the U.S.. They've been imposed on us by both democratic and republican governments. If the U.S, for example, says "Canada, you have too many trees. Our tree farmers can't compete so we're tariffing those.", there's not much we can do. We do have rather a lot of trees. If Trump had been respectful, he'd have his updated treaty by now and Canadian goods would likely be under some degree of permanent tariff's. Thanks to Trump running his mouth, the trade dispute became a matter of national sovereignty that has been under a microscope for the last year and a half. Trump's rhetoric has made it impossible for Canadian politicians to capitulate. Trade is, ideally, about both sides winning, but Trump has formulated things so that the U.S. can't win if Canada doesn't lose. Canadians are now unwilling to accept another loss. The result is an impasse.
The problem going forward is that Trump is still continually insulting and threatening the U.S.'s closest allies, and Americans have done nothing to stop him. Not one thing of substance. You can have impeachments like hobbits have breakfasts, but nothing ever seems to touch Trump. He does what he wants. The U.S. needs to have its Magna Carta moment and rein in its king. Your system has failed to the point where we'd rather not live on the same continent as you. If we could saw it off at the 49th and paddle our part of the continent closer to either Asia or Europe, we would.
As a US citizen, you should be angrier than Canadians are. Your nation is poorer, embroiled in unnecessary wars, and has lost significant international influence because of Trump. The consequences of what he has done will take decades to play out, and there's little the next president can do to mitigate them. Donald Trump is Making America Go Away, and Americans are continuing to let him do it.
Democrats will point fingers at Trump but there's no way they roll any of these tariffs back when they regain power, as much as I wish they would.
>As a US citizen, I just want to add that I hope some day we can reestablish a healthy relationship with our neighbors. These articles are saddening.
Canadian here. It'll be at least a generation, if it ever happens at all. I have two kids in elementary school and every single one of their peers is talking about America as a threat. More than once I've had one of my kids ask me if it's true Donald Trump wants to take over Canada. It's a whole generation of children growing up resentful of America, viewing it as a threat rather than an ally. Those attitudes aren't going to just evaporate after Trump leaves office.
I took no end of downvotes and snarky comments from arrogant Americans on this fucking website for suggesting that the old days are not coming back, largely because Canadians have realized that Trump is broadly representative of Americans. He is a symptom of an underlying sickness. The problem is Americans themselves.
To wit: Harris got 75 million votes in 2024[0]. The total voting-age population is roughly 270 million [1], which means less than a third of the US electorate voted against Trump. The remaining two thirds either voted for him or were sufficiently unbothered so as to not vote at all. So we see a bunch of Americans in the media or on socials crying crocodile tears about how tHeIr AlLiEs ArE sO vAlUaBlE tO tHeM and traitors in the Alberta government notwithstanding I think broadly speaking Canadians realize it's bullshit and have moved on. Any treaty the US signs is not worth the paper it's printed on.
This schism is permanent, and I think Americans have yet to comprehend just how much foreign attitudes towards America have moved over the last year and a half.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06...
Speaking of foreign attitudes: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many...
https://bsky.app/profile/gasbuddyguy.bsky.social/post/3mwtw3...
> it continues to absolutely boggle my mind how few people realize that refineries in the US Rockies, Plains, Midwest/Great Lakes rely so heavily on millions of barrels of Canadian crude oil every day and have since the 1950s
> if Canada were to pull the plug on sending the US oil- even for a week- states like MT, ID, WY, UT, ND, SD, NE, OK, MO, IA, MN, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH, KY, and TN would nearly immediately see huge problems.
> most people in the Midwest have heard of BP's refinery in Whiting, Indiana. The largest in the region, 440,000bpd of capacity. When it goes down, it's often mentioned. Do most know ~85% of Whiting's feedstock is Canadian oil? just imagine if Canada pulled the plug.
Political theater to increase oil production in Alberta and help the US agenda of exporting oil to Asia to allies so Hormuz can be closed.
Carney is a weasel like all of them.
global warming is a global problem and instead, we're all just playing the prisoner's dilemma.