this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
4 points (83.3% liked)

politics

22768 readers
2840 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Trump being elected should have invoked the 2nd amendment, but as we all know the American citizens are the most spineless bags of hot air since the hot air balloon.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He should have been banned from running long ago when he incited an insurrection trying to stay in power.

[–] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It does seem like all the hoohah about how great the US Constitution is, or the genuis of the US founders may well have just been some good marketing mixed with a reliable dash of American Exceptionalism.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

The problem with any constitution is that it's not self-enforcing. Any system can be subverted and corrupted. It's the corruption that's the problem, not that the Constitution (like any set of laws) is not perfect.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not sure how 25th would help. vance literally was the one that called for ignoring judges and calling for their impeachment.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

most of the die-hard trump worshippers wouldn’t stand behind Vance….

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Don't underestimate Vance's capacity for evil, or Trump followers' willingness to brainlessly follow any goose-stepping shitstain who the rightwing media glorifies.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Vance doesn’t have that thing that they worship… wasn’t a reality tv star or www wrestler, wasn’t wealthy or have a brand….
they would ditch vance as quick as they ditched pence

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A lot of things he's done should have invoked the 25th ammendment

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A lot of things in Trumps last term too. And a few things in Bidens term. The 25th doesnt really function.

We used to talk about "constituional crisis" too, and Trump is now just ignoring judges and asking what anyone will do about it. That should also trigger the 25th, if congress lived up to their oaths, but their oaths are vastly secondary to party politics, self interest, and money making, on both sides.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What did Biden do that warranted invoking the 25th? I suspect if you think it should have with him, it should have with every president.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

Our laws plainly spell out that if a state is interfering with aid distribution, aid and weapons to them must stop. Biden refused to admit that Israel was interfering with aid distribution in any way. According to Biden the gazans have food aid and aid workers have not been interfered with. I dont see how this violation can possibly be debated.

In the face of strenuous complaints by congress, Biden refused to admit that Israel could plausibly be involved in genocide, which would have triggered automatic safeguards in the Leahy laws and other laws around shipment of weapons and giving of foreign monetary aid.

Israel/Biden also repeatedly and consistently violated the geneva conventions, which we are a signatory of, so thats binding law in our legal system. That makes him a war criminal with blood on his hands.

Biden swore an oath to faithfully execute our laws, which he grossly violated, doing massive amounts of grievous criminal harm. These are the very definition of "high crimes".

https://www.commondreams.org/news/leahy-law-israel

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/17/palestine-israel-leahy-lawsuit

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

And that's different than what any other US president would have done? Kowtowing to Israel is US government policy.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

that changes nothing….
and Isreal has been acting much worse than they were before… although it was still genocidal

[–] lapping6596@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Nothing different. I'd argue that's another indicator that the US's 'health' has been bad for a long time.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The point is whether the 25th amendment should have been invoked.

If the conditions were met, then other past presidents doing the same thing just means the 25th amendment should have been invoked in those situations as well.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

None of this has anything to do with the 25th Amendment. The 25th is the process for removing a president from office in the event of physical or mental disability to severe that the President can no longer carry out the duties of office.

Committing war crimes doesn't trigger the 25th. Neither does breaking any other law. Those are what impeachment is for, and (ignoring the Supreme Court's recent unlawful establishment of an elective absolute monarchy) enforcement of the law against the President, in those cases where there are criminal penalties.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Thank you for clarifying. In that case the rebuttal to kreskin above should be that the 25th amendment does not apply to crimes, rather than that many presidents commit crimes.

Btw, as an outsider I'm pressing X to doubt that anyone will ever be able to successfully invoke the 25th amendment. It will be even harder than impeaching. None of the people involved are willing to relinquish power and independent access to determine their puppet's dementia would be impossible.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, the barrier to actually using the 25th is absurdly high, and a president with dementia could cling to office by the simple expedient of objecting to the finding of incapacity. The amendment regards that as sufficient evidence that the president can carry out his duties. And if a VP chose to protect an incapacitated president from removal from office, the process could be derailed that way, too.

As for rebutting Kreskin, I think I'm done attempting to reason with them. Instead, I'll try teaching my dog to play chess, it's more likely I'll succeed at that.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds like the original authors were thinking about honourable men with tuberculosis rather than dishonourable men with dementia.

This is probably a naive comment but it seems a pity the Amendments weren't kept up to date with the times so that their spirit could be enforced by practical applications.

Your dog: 1. e4 e5. 2. Ke2

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh come on, that’s ridiculous. I was with you calling Biden an enabler for Israel’s actions in Gaza, but I just don’t see the leap to war crime

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well we can google what is a war crime.

Lets do that:

What qualifies as a war crime?

A war crime, a serious violation of international humanitarian law, is a breach of the laws or customs of war committed in the context of an armed conflict, whether international or non-international, and can lead to individual criminal responsibility.

Here's a breakdown of what qualifies as a war crime: Key Elements:

Context: War crimes always occur within the context of an armed conflict, whether international (between states) or non-international (internal conflicts).

Violation of International Law: They involve serious breaches of the laws and customs of war, as defined in international treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Individual Responsibility: Perpetrators of war crimes incur individual criminal responsibility under international law.

Examples of War Crimes: Attacks Against Civilians: Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects.

Torture and Cruel Treatment: Inflicting torture, cruel treatment, or inhuman treatment on prisoners of war or civilians.

Taking Hostages: Taking hostages.

Pillaging: Pillaging or looting property.

Sexual Violence: Rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, or any other form of sexual violence.

Use of Prohibited Weapons: Using weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or are prohibited by international law, such as chemical weapons or cluster munitions.

Disregard for the Wounded and Sick: Attacking medical personnel, facilities, or transports, or preventing them from carrying out their duties.

Deportation or Transfer of Populations: Forcibly deporting or transferring populations from their homes.

Use of Child Soldiers: Enlisting or using children under the age of 15 in armed conflict.

Killing or Wounding Surrendered Combatants: Killing or wounding combatants who have surrendered or are hors de combat (out of action).

Important Considerations:

Proportionality:

Military actions must be proportionate, meaning the harm caused to civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

Distinction: Military actions must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between military objectives and civilian objects.

Necessity: Military actions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective and should not cause unnecessary suffering.

Humanity: Military actions must be conducted with humanity and should avoid unnecessary suffering.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Which of those did Biden commit?

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I'll just block you instead. You clearly arent worth the time for me or anyone else to reply to.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What US military action has taken place in Gaza?

Let me help you: none. The US has supported a state that is committing war crimes. Show me where in international law that is defined as a war crime.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the United States signed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on September 25, 2013, which establishes common standards for the international trade of conventional weapons and aims to prevent transfers that could fuel genocide, war crimes, and other human rights abuses.

Article 6 addresses explicitly prohibitions against arms transfers that would be contrary to international legal obligations, or where the State knows the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and certain war crimes. This provision sets a clear benchmark to allow States parties to effectively and consistently implement these prohibitions.

https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/att/att.html

In the 1949 geneva conventions, referred to as the IHL, signed by the US: War crimes – serious violations of international humanitarian law that include wilful killings, direct attacks on civilians, torture, use of prohibited weapons, the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or others who have been captured, surrendered or injured and crimes of sexual violence.

Crimes against humanity – crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack by or on behalf of a state or an organization against a civilian population during peace or wartime. There are 11 crimes against humanity including murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of a population, torture, rape and other serious forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance and apartheid. Crimes against humanity may be committed in armed conflict or in peacetime.

Genocide – certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, completely or partially, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Genocide may be committed in armed conflict or in peacetime.

In Us law Biden violated the Leahy act and the arms export control act.

Glad I could help you out and make you better informed. Also check these.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/amnesty-international-warns-of-u-s-complicity-in-war-crimes-in-gaza/

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-weapons-to-israel

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're listing laws, many of which could apply to Israel's conduct in Gaza. But when it comes to direct actions that the US took under Biden, you only cite the Leahy Act and the Arms Export Control Act, neither of which is international law, and the breach of neither of which constitutes genocide (though it's undeniable that the US's actions contribute to genocide). And the enforcement of both the Leahy Act and the ACDA is a joke. The Leahy Act forbids the US government from supplying arms to nations that the US Department of State finds to be abusing human rights. In other words, it's the US policing itself. Simlarly, the AECA gives the President the power to require that recipients of US armaments are allowed to use them only for "legitimate self-defense." And the President gets to decide who that is and what constitutes a breach.

Unless you are arguing that, according to international law, anyone involved in the arms trade is guilty of genocide if someone it sells to commits genocide? OK, then how many prosecutions have occurred for cases like that that the Hague? I'd like to see the international system work like that, but it doesn't. As best I can tell, that number is zero.

Glad I could help you out and make you better informed.

It's not a good look to be patronizing when you don't know what you're talking about. Your whole line of argument is nothing but begging the question.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You’re listing laws, many of which could apply to Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

We were talking about US law, and you jumped in with a strawman. When the US signs onto a treaty against genocide and break that treaty, our legal system considers that breaking the law. You threw in Israel to distract from that point, cute.

You're either just a centrist who cant admit they stood for genocide, or you're a zionist. Either way you're strawmanning rather than making any point-- just muddying the water to shut the point down and make this a messy slapfight. I'd say its amatuer hour over at hasbara hq, but these cheap tactics always seem to work for you lot, so I guess good job.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

You're claiming that Biden broke laws while in office. There's a strong argument to be made that he did (like every other US president since Eisenhower). That would have been a case for impeachment. It's not like Biden was in a coma or otherwise unable to carry out his oath of office due to incapacity, which is what the 25th is for. And the threshold for invoking the 25th is far higher than having looked feeble in a debate.

strenuous complaints by congress

When did a Congressional majority make such a complaint? There are painfully few Congressional voices that challenge the morally bankrupt US policy in that region. In fact, huge part of the underlying problem with US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is that Congress has never been impartial.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ok, so def like -100 karma points for Biden, but it's kind of petty to focus on that when Trump was already at like -20 million before he even took office

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is there some rule that we just imprison whichever one lawbreaker is worst? I dont think thats how laws work. Supposedly we are a nation of laws.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago

If the law were enforced to the max with no exceptions, everyone would be imprisoned.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Except trump has something like 75% approval rating with republicans. So its wishful thinking, unfortunately.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ that comes across as even worse than Putin deciding he needed to annex Ukraine. How is it that in a world of too many bad guys, we’re turning into the worse guy?

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"We" are not turning into anything. The government has been taken over by fascists and what "we" should be turning into is a unified, organized resistance.

[–] Bryter@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Canadian here. Please do.

[–] dadarobot@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Trump’s Call to Annex Canada as a State Should Have Invoked the 25th Amendment

The president was clearly irrational. Instead, there was Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick seconding the motion.

By Charles P. PiercePublished: Mar 17, 2025 5:29 PM EDT bookmarksSave Article president trump signs executive orders in the oval office

Chip Somodevilla//Getty Images

What has become plain this week is that the entire administration has committed itself to the president’s pipe dream of annexing Canada as the 51st state. It wasn’t just the president’s bizarre appearance with Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, in which the president took a short stroll around the Izonkosphere.

“Canada only works as a state. … This would be the most incredible country
visually. If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through
it, between Canada and the U.S., just a straight artificial line. Somebody
did it a long time ago, many, many decades ago, and makes no sense.”

It is necessary at this point to mention that the so-called “artificial line” is usually referred to as a “border.” The president seems to grasp the concept when referring to the “artificial line” separating the United States and Mexico. Strange, that. The president went on.

“It’s so perfect as a great and cherished state. I love [O, Canada]. I
think it’s great. Keep it, but it will be for the state, one of our
greatest states, maybe our greatest state.”

Wonderful. He’s going to let them keep their national anthem, one of the world’s most stirring, but only as a state song, like “On the Banks of the Wabash,” “Georgia on My Mind,” or “On, Wisconsin.” I suppose he’ll let them keep their hockey teams, too.

The whole episode should have brought about an instantaneous Cabinet meeting at which the 25th Amendment was invoked. The president was clearly irrational. Instead, there was Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick seconding the motion. From the Hill:

“The best way, the president has said it, the best way to actually merge
the economies of Canada and the United States is for Canada to become our
51st state. If they want to merge it, that’s how you make it the 51st
state,” Lutnick said on Fox Business Network’s Varney & Co.

It really is a cult, you know.

On the Bluesky app, journalist and author Garrett Epps shrewdly pointed out that in Fletcher Knebel’s Night of Camp David, one of the first manifestations of President Mark Hollenbach’s mental illness was his secret desire to merge the United States and Canada—as well as all of Scandanavia—into a single entity called “Aspen.” In fact, the book was reissued during the first Trump administration, and it was referenced on TV by both Rachel Maddow and Bob Woodward. Now, though, with the president’s grand design seeming to parallel the grandiose foreign-policy proposal of the fictional President Hollenbach, the book has taken on an even greater salience.

(By the way, the hero of the book is a young, ambitious first-term senator named James McVeagh with whom the crazy president shares his notions in the aforementioned night at Camp David. Maybe you can see J. Divan Vance in that role, but I can’t.)

In the novel, the crazy president sounds almost rational in explaining the irrational.

“Canada is the wealthiest nation on earth.” Hollenbach’s words raced after
each other. …“The mineral riches under her soil are incredible in their
immensity. Even with modern demands, they are well-nigh inexhaustible.
Believe me, Jim, Canada will be the seat of power in the next century and,
properly exploited and conserved, her riches can go for a thousand years.
...

.. But the merger of know-how, power, and character, the United States,
Canada, and Scandinavia, the new nation under one parliament and one
president could keep the peace for centuries. The president of the union
should be the man who dreamed the dreams of giants. ...

… “I only exclude Europe at the start,” said Hollenbach, and his face
quickly lighted again. “Right now, Europe has nothing to give us. But once
we have built the fortress of Aspen, I predict the nations of Europe will
pound at the door to get in. And, if they don’t, we’ll have the power to
force them into the new nation. … There are other kinds of pressure, trade
duties and barriers, financial measures, economic sanctions, if you will.
But, never fear, Jim. England, France, Germany, and the Low Countries, too,
can be brought to heel.

When Knebel wrote his classic Seven Days in May, about an attempted military junta in Washington, he was drawing on inside knowledge about the turmoil in the Kennedy administration between the president, the Joint Chiefs, and the intelligence community—turmoil that would do a lot to feed suspicions after the president’s murder in 1963. JFK was a big fan of the book, so much that he allowed director John Frankenheimer to photograph the White House so he could make the sets for his film adaptation.

In the case of Night of Camp David, Knebel was able to draw on American attempts to absorb Canada that dated back to the founding of the nation. In fact, Article XI of the original Articles of Confederation read as follows:

Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the
United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages
of this Union.

The American Revolution helped the new country break off those parts of British North America in and around the Great Lakes. We tried to seize the entire country in the War of 1812, but we failed, and we got Washington burned in the bargain. Through the years up to the American Civil War, there were annexation groups on both sides of the border.

In 1860, Secretary of State William Seward came close to annexing the territory from Washington state all the way up to Alaska, which at the time was owned by Russia. For a while, it looked like Great Britain might actually swing for the deal. But,when Seward bought Alaska in 1868, the people in the region began to feel uncomfortable with the U.S. closing in from both the north and south, so popular opinion shifted. Then, of course, there were the Fenians.

The Fenian Brotherhood was a product of one of the periodic risings in Ireland against British rule. It was the American wing of what was called in Ireland the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The American Fenians were a substantial force. They had money—upwards of $500,000—and weapons and an army made up of veterans of the American Civil War. (They were led by John O’Mahony, who’d fought with the 69th New York, part of the famed Irish Brigade.) After the war, the Fenians launched a series of raids into Canada. They came in two bursts—one in 1866 and another in 1870–71. They occurred all over Canada, from Manitoba to the Maritimes. None of them succeeded, and one of them, a raid around the Minnesota–Manitoba border, never even made it into Canada. The only real result was to strengthen Canadian nationalism; the raids were pivotal in the eventual development of the Canadian confederation in 1867, an arrangement that the current U.S. president believes would make a helluva 51st state. In the debate over forming the confederation, Sir John MacDonald said:

If we do not take advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to
the occasion, it may never return, and we shall hereafter bitterly and
unavailingly regret having failed to embrace the happy opportunity now
offered of founding a great nation under the fostering care of Great
Britain, and our Sovereign Lady, Queen Victoria.

One of MacDonald’s primary concerns while forming the confederation was American meddling, especially in the rebellious western parts of Canada. He wrote to his minister of finance:

I cannot understand the desire of the Colonial Office, or of the Company,
to saddle the responsibility of the government on Canada just now. It would
so completely throw the game into the hands of the insurgents and the
Yankee wirepullers, who are to some extent influencing and directing the
movement from St. Paul that we cannot foresee the consequences.

You always have to watch out for those Yankee wirepullers. Can’t trust them worth a damn.

[–] WiseScorpio@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

In his deal with Putin, Trump is closing the investigations into child trafficking and kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and closing down war crimes committed by Russian military.

I agree, Trump advocating for invading Canada and Greenland is enough for the 25th Amendment and on moral grounds I hold him accountable for absolving Putin and Russia of war crimes.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Slax@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

It's the Trump administration -- it doesn't matter what it says.

[–] ctkatz@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

i'm going to take a counter argument here. the united states should annex canada and buy greenland.

why?

because the population of canada is more than california.

because there are 48 democratic senators.

because canada and denmark are both more left leaning than california is.

see where i'm going here? canada and greenland gives dems enough people to force through their agenda through the house and senate. and with enough backlash there's probably going to be a lot of gop senators who aren't going to be senators in 2026, probably enough to hit 69 which would be the minimum to remove trump from office. probably enough to impeach that little lickspittle vance too. and then enough votes for a democratic president (since the house would be run by democrats, 3rd in succession is the speaker of the house) to sign bills giving canada it's "independance" and return greenland to denmark.

if trump wants it that badly, then lets give it to him.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

That assumes that Trump or his fascist successors would honor democratic norms. I've seen no evidence of that so far.

[–] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

They'll make them a territory like D.C. or P.R. who don't have senators.

[–] Yoga@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 weeks ago

Fascism is okay actually when my party wins

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Any threat to Canada is a threat to the whole commonwealth!

[–] Snowstorm@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes but No

No country will put themselves in a strategically loosing situation willfully. The UK is militarily very intertwined with the US : An abrupt divorce with the US isn’t possible. Just like Ukraine’s European allies are still buying Russian gaz, many NATO allies will try to play both side and the smaller Canada essentially being abandoned to itself. Easier to organize a blockade with the Atlantic Ocean as a boarder after Canada is attacked and mostly lost. I say this painfully as a Canadian. Hopefully we have time to make it too expensive to attack us.

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That’s BS. You could have said the same thing during WWII. Countries stood up against fascism then, going against what was “better” for them. Countries will do it again if they have to. Canada sent troops over the ocean to fight on the front lines in WWII as cannon fodder before members of other armies - but we were tough as shit and savage. If we ever need to call in a favour - we will.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›