See Don run
Oh god why do they do this? Why do they parade their rudeness and bad behavior in public?
Brad Jaffy tweets two photos, one of the Prime Minister’s office readout of Trudeau’s phone call with Trump, the other the White House readout of the same call.
Left: Prime Minister's office readout of Trudeau's phone call with Trump
Right: White House readout of the very same call
Um… pic.twitter.com/asAxPMGhMp
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 26, 2017
Or maybe it’s more cowardice than laziness. Business Insider elaborates:
The US and Canada are embroiled in an escalating fight over trade policy, and the tensions between the close allies seemed evident in the readouts both countries released of a phone call on Tuesday between US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau’s office’s readout of the call included several details of the conversation.
“The prime minister and the president reaffirmed the importance of the mutually beneficial Canada-US trade relationship,” Canada’s readout said. “On the issue of softwood lumber, the prime minister refuted the baseless allegations by the US Department of Commerce and the decision to impose unfair duties.”
“Unfair duties” was a reference to Trump’s decision on Tuesday to impose a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber imports.
Who is Trump’s expert on lumber imports? One of his grandchildren perhaps?
The two leaders also discussed the dispute over the Canadian dairy industry that Trump has recently highlighted. He has accused Canada of taking advantage of US dairy farmers.
“The prime minister and the president also discussed Canada-US trade in dairy products, trade which heavily favours the US: Canada imports over $550 million of dairy products from the US, but exports just over $110 million to the US,” Canada’s readout of the call said.
“The prime minister reaffirmed that Canada upholds its international trade obligations, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, under which the US continues to have duty-free and quota-free access for milk protein substances … and that Canada would continue to defend its interests,” the statement continued. “The prime minister and the president agreed to continue their dialogue on these important bilateral issues.”
The White House readout was insultingly shorter and more perfunctory.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke today,” the White House’s readout said. “The two leaders discussed the dairy trade in Wisconsin, New York state, and various other places. They also discussed lumber coming into the United States. It was a very amicable call.”
No, it wasn’t. That’s that Trump nonsense about “chemistry” again. However polite Trudeau was (because he’s an adult and a professional), the substance of the call was obviously not amicable.
Are you suggesting that Trudeau might know things Donald doesn’t know? Are you really that unpatriotic, that disloyal to our exalted orange leader?
I have a lot of problems with NAFTA, but not with the idea of trade, only the nasty bits (that I believe were put in by the US – like Chapter 11). Donald has no clue what NAFTA does; he only knows that when he talked about tearing up trade deals, he got a lot of applause so he said it again…it got applause again…he will continue saying it as long as it gets applause, but he will never, ever, ever understand something so complicated and nuanced as global trade.
Worryingly, there are a not-insignificant number of people in Canada who seem to think there’s something to the Trump phenomenon; our version of the celeblowhard is called Kevin O’Leary. And when I recall conversations with some neighbours who disdained ‘Crooked Hillary’ during the last election, it made me wonder if I’d come to regret immigrating from Trump Country in the first place, if Trump Country was just going to follow me here.
Seth, I’m sorry to report but obliged to warn: yes, there are plenty about. The fact that the ‘Crooked Hillary’ bumper sticker slogan made it over the border is no wonder; Canada’s in the media sea as much as anywhere, and beyond this, I’ve met a few who seem pretty warm to a _lot_ of what got Trump elected. And no huge surprise to me; grew up rural, and beyond this, have been bumping into people of similar notions all my life. Nothing much new about it.
Worse: one of the things one I think Gary Kasparov said about this a few months ago ( https://politicalwire.com/tags/garry-kasparov/ … again, I only _think_ it was in this interview? ) about the US situation rang rather hard in my Canadian ears: he was saying one of the interesting byproducts of the Trump election was how it was galvanizing interest in defending the instutions of democracy, making people at least less apathetic, that maybe previously a lot of US citizens really did think ‘it can’t happen here’, and noticing it, apparently, can, they’re fighting, and that, at least, is a good thing…
… and it rang so hard because I think there’s much of that same thing in the Canadian mindset. There’s this notion afoot that we’re different, _decent_, this would never happen here, populism isn’t going to run away with the ball into a dangerous, authoritarian fever dream…
Answering that: I think the US example is just _one_ more should remind anyone: _never_ _think_ _that_. And in response to Kasparov’s comment, I don’t think him wrong, at all, but after what any number of physicians would suggest: it’s generally vastly better, cheaper, less damaging, less dangerous to _prevent_ injury or disease, versus treating it after it’s already happened. That’s to say: don’t say ‘it can’t happen here’. Rather: don’t _let_ it happen here. There are plenty about who _will_ be attracted to coded racism, to appeals to some mythical golden age. Always have been. _Every_ nation has divisions, anxieties, fears that can be exploited by a demagogue with even half-decent instincts, and these do seem to be anxious times, especially in the wake of relatively recent economic turmoil, the recovery, as always, being uneven, and coming slowest to those who could least weather it in the first place.
It doesn’t help that the media treat this polarization as if it were just some sort of tennis match between two sides who are equivalent. The false equivalency of, well, both sides think they are right…translates into “neither side is right” or “it really doesn’t matter” or “there is no real truth, it’s just opinion” to many people. I see that in magazines, newspapers, and student papers – polarization like somehow it’s just two sides arguing over ice cream flavors, where each one is bound and determined their idea is the best. No, there are some things that we can look at evidence, point to studies, and examine the impact on other people. And when you do this, one side clearly comes out ahead, and it is not the Trump side. Spewing hate on everyone and telling (often fake) stories about the hardships they’ve endured at the hands of the ‘politically correct’ crowd does not constitute evidence, certainly not equivalency.
Fascism and demogoguery would be especially dangerous in Canada.
For better or worse — and I would say it’s usually for worse — the U.S. system has a lot of resistance to change built-in. Separation of legislative and executive branches, a more powerful judiciary, a legislative branch that has two houses with democratic legitimacy, Senate filibuster rules, and a Constitution that at least on paper is more absolute in protecting rights. As a certain fellow from Queens is finding out.
By comparison, the old line about majority government in a parliamentary system being an “elected dictatorship” has a lot of truth to it. As long as he or she maintains the support of his or her caucus, a Canadian Prime Minister has a hell of a lot of power.
iknklast/#4, re both sides do it: add to this: purveyors of falsehoods _love_ that. It’s like invading and having half the ground just given up without a fight. As I figure any veteran of the creationist invasions knows all too well.
Particularly annoying example today: the Washington Post (for which I do have some qualified respect) had a thing on how there’s a political divide between those who suspect Trump’s campaign may have actively colluded with Russian intelligence during their various information warfare efforts during the US election, and those who believe Obama ‘wiretapped’ Trump. Which, of course, there _is_….
… but the very construction seems to me to imply these beliefs are somehow on an even footing, when, no, really, they aren’t. The former, sure, is still speculative, but has rather a _lot_ of quite compelling reasons there should be active investigations of the same, at least…
… while the latter is whole cloth bullshit cooked up by a serial liar on Twitter, and amplified through his echo chamber, probably primarily to attempt to _distract_ from growing rumours of the former.
So yeah. Enough with the both sides do it. The lies this aministration and their cronies are generated are the chlorine gas of information warfare: heavy, choking, crawling along the ground, creating confusion. It only amplifies their damage to raise them to the level of what they’re designed to obscure.
Hasn’t someone just taken a large gutting knife to the senate Filibuster rules? Or was that for one specific issue?
Rob, right now it was for one specific issue. And I suspect if the Dems get back in power, we’ll find it was for one specific party, since the Repubs have filibustered everything for the past 8 years. They won’t get rid of the filibuster completely until they’re sure they’re going to be in power forever without challenge – and I think most of the Congressional Republicans have been through enough of those euphoric highs to realize how often they fall on their ass.
AJ Milne:
It says a lot about the American mindset on the left of the political divide that two terms of George W. didn’t teach them that same lesson. When a half-wit like Bush Jnr. can win a second term you’d think the left would have learned from that and pulled out all the stops to ensure that a full-on no-wit wouldn’t get the keys to the White House.
I doubt the Democrats would undo the re-writing of the rules anytime soon, but I also agree they probably wouldn’t expand the filibuster ban to include actual votes on laws (currently, it’s just for appointments). Now, whether the Republicans are foolhardy enough to expand it there… I honestly don’t know. This batch seems to have taken to the premise that they need to accomplish as much (harm) as possible before the Orange One leads them to complete ruin. They might very well be willing to leave their own party in a complete shambles on their way out the door.