They are already submitting. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Trump-tariffs-Canada-Mexico-China-border.html Justin Trudeau calls Trump just two hours after president-elect threatens devastating sanctions against Canada, Mexico and China to stop border invasion Just two hours after Trump posted the threats, Trudeau called Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate, and the two had a constructive conversation focused on trade and security at the border, an unidentified Canadian official with knowledge of the call told the New York Times.
Dems think it is going to be the same as Trump's first term. I will let you in on a little secret. Trump isn't going to run again. He doesn't have to worry about dem media anymore.
We already have one Captain Obvious. This is exactly why fascism is the real concern, not as a theoretical risk, but as it manifests in practice. Recognising it requires understanding how it operates day-to-day, not just in its most extreme forms. Having family who fought and died to stop fascism offers a deep perspective that goes beyond those who simply fled to America from it. Many of those who fled brought with them cultural traits shaped by centuries and millennia of survival under invaders, which often emphasized submission over resistance. That historical context matters when considering the resilience, or lack thereof, against authoritarianism today.
That's not a "submission" dumb ass. Trump hasn't achieved a thing he took a phone call. What on earth do you think you gained at this point ? Canada is preparing counter measures already a committee was formed some time ago to be ready to respond to Trump one of the most irrational leaders in recent history. Term one he tried these tactics on Canada got nowhere. The 25% seems appropriate give his vindictive nature in old age, he still resents how we basically told him to fuck off the first time. So now he pretends our immigration policy and border are a problem not unlike Mexico ? Come on now our border has far more problems in the other direction with US firearms. You jokers are owning yourself, Donnie is a disaster.
Oh, Trudeau submitted like a little bitch. HAHAHAH. Counter measures!? Canada is a little piss ant meaningless country that literally no one gives a shit about. Its counter measures will be duds. All Canada is good at is contributing massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. US = 27.36 trillion GDP CA = 2.14 trillion GDP
This is what authoritarianism looks like on steroids. The Biden/Dem regime went full blown authoritarian. This is why so many in Silicon Valley rebelled.
Oh F off with the netscape guy, pro unchecked monopoly and crypto because his new company is a crypto business. He is protecting his own rice bowl. It was the disparity between federal laws and state laws made by the GOP more than anybody that started payment processing to hands off some relatively sketchy businesses. Yawn. A bunch of amoral and sketchy neo libertarian types were miffed and suddenly the whole of Silicon Valley is oppressed. Bollocks.
Marc Andreessen’s (that knob head on Joe Rogan) Techno-Optimist Manifesto envisions a world where wealthy technologists, unencumbered by ethics or social responsibility, shape the future as quasi-monarchs. It promotes unrestrained technological acceleration while dismissing democracy and egalitarianism, aligning with far-right neoreactionary ideals. Critics view it as both a self-serving defense of Silicon Valley elites and a reflection of broader societal values that prioritize productivity and wealth over collective welfare. Despite its contradictions, the manifesto reveals the mindset of tech leaders who see innovation as the highest virtue, regardless of its societal costs. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/28/opinion/marc-andreessen-manifesto-techno-optimism.html By Elizabeth Spiers Ms. Spiers, a contributing Opinion writer, is a journalist and digital media strategist. It takes a certain kind of person to write grandiose manifestoes for public consumption, unafflicted by self-doubt or denuded of self-interest. The latest example is Marc Andreessen, a co-founder of the top-tier venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and best known, to those of us who came of age before TikTok, as a co-founder of the pioneering internet browser Netscape. In “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto,” a recent 5,000-plus-word post on the Andreessen Horowitz website, Mr. Andreessen outlines a vision of technologists as the authors of a future in which the “techno-capital machine” produces everything that is good in the world. In this vision, wealthy technologists are not just leaders of their business but keepers of the social order, unencumbered by what Mr. Andreessen labels “enemies”: social responsibility, trust and safety, tech ethics, to name a few. As for the rest of us — the unwashed masses, people who have either “unskilled” jobs or useless liberal arts degrees or both — we exist mostly as automatons whose entire value is measured in productivity. The vision has attracted a good deal of controversy. But the real problem with Mr. Andreessen’s manifesto may be not that it’s too outlandish, but that it’s too on-the-nose. Because in a very real and consequential sense, this view is already enshrined in our culture. Major tent-poles of public policy support it. You can see it in the work requirements associated with public assistance, which imply that people’s primary value is their labor and that refusal or inability to contribute is fundamentally antisocial. You can see it in the way we valorize the C.E.O.s of “unicorn” companies who have expanded their wealth far beyond what could possibly be justified by their individual contributions. And the way we regard that wealth as a product of good decision-making and righteous hard work, no matter how many billions of dollars of investors’ money they may have vaporized, how many other people contributed to their success or how much government money subsidized it. In the case of ordinary individuals, however, debt is regarded as not just a financial failure but a moral one. (If you are successful and have paid your student loans off, taking them out in the first place was a good decision. If you haven’t and can’t, you were irresponsible and the government should not enable your freeloading.) Would-be corporate monarchs, having consolidated power even beyond their vast riches, have already persuaded much of the rest of the population to more or less go along with it. As a piece of writing, the rambling and often contradictory manifesto has the pathos of the Unabomber manifesto but lacks the ideological coherency. It rails against centralized systems of government (communism in particular, though it’s unclear where Mr. Andreessen may have ever encountered communism in his decades of living and working in Silicon Valley) while advocating that technologists do the central planning and govern the future of humanity. Its very first line is “We are being lied to,” followed by a litany of grievances, but further on it expresses disdain for “victim mentality.” It would be easy to dismiss this kind of thing as just Mr. Andreessen’s predictable self-interest, but it’s more than that. He articulates (albeit in a refrigerator magnet poetry kind of way) a strain of nihilismt hat has gained traction among tech elites, and reveals much of how they think about their few remaining responsibilities to society. Neoreactionary thought contends that the world would operate much better in the hands of a few tech-savvy elites in a quasi-feudal system. Mr. Andreessen, through this lens, believes that advancing technology is the most virtuous thing one can do. This strain of thinking is disdainful of democracy and opposes institutions (a free press, for example) that bolster it. It despises egalitarianism and views oppression of marginalized groups as a problem of their own making. It argues for an extreme acceleration of technological advancement regardless of consequences, in a way that makes “move fast and break things” seem modest. If this all sounds creepy and far-right in nature, it is. Mr. Andreessen claims to be against authoritarianism, but really, it’s a matter of choosing the authoritarian — and the neoreactionary authoritarian of choice is a C.E.O. who operates as king. (One high-profile neoreactionary, Curtis Yarvin, nominated Steve Jobs to rule California.) There’s probably a German word to describe the unique combination of horrifying and silly that this vision evokes, but it is taken seriously by people who imagine themselves potential Chief Executive Authoritarians, or at the very least proxies. This includes another Silicon Valley billionaire, Peter Thiel, who has funded some of Mr. Yarvin’s work and once wrote that he believed democracy and freedom were incompatible. Singularity future, any harm they’ve done to the planet or to other people is necessary collateral damage. It’s the delusion of people who’ve been able to buy their way out of everything uncomfortable, inconvenient or painful, and don’t accept the fact that they cannot buy their way out of death.