I have noticed distress, anxiety, rationalization and denial, amongst my immigrant and first generation Canadian friends.
This is the whole bully tactic in a nutshell: activate a traumatic response by whatever means, and take whatever you please while the victim remains in freeze.
It's certainly not a 'genius' move by any stretch, and people who call it that are fawning.
Thank you Nate for reminding us that humanity has survived as a species because of cooperation not force, not power-over. In light of the systemic dismantling of the rule of law and other key principles of our imperfect democracies, our elected representatives cannot afford to be lukewarm in using their spheres of influence to call out, "Enough. "
Lena, That's an interesting observation and I applaud your optimism. But what surrounds us today is that the leaders of the 3 most potentially destructive countries on earth would sooner eat you for lunch than share a meal. What's so disappointing is that the USA has lost all sense of what it takes to be good.
I won't make assumptions about who you're referring to as 'our elected representatives'. But I'll pose two questions in response:
1. Do you think that it's possible our PM may have communicated a strong message and he did it directly in conversation with Trump? Nate's comments seem to ignore this possibility and he becomes just another tweeter feeling 'big' and believing this helps his case to position himself as a leader of a party. We need less of this and Nate should be smarter and more careful than that.
2. Calling 'enough' is meaningless unless it includes 'or else'. Leaders like Trump bully when they can. I'm so disgusted with the PM of Britain when he came to grovel to Trump and offered the King's invite to celebrate their relationship. What was he and the King thinking? And part of that play was to get in ahead of Canada, France, Germany, Japan (and every other country) to 'win' the best darn trade deal. Winston Churchill was turning over in his grave. I salute Carney for his resilience - he could have done the same and many countries have followed suit. The tariff thing was the place to make the 'enough' stand - collectively the rest of the world could have made the bully run for cover.
Peter, your points, in particular the two made in reply, are quite apt and accurate both historically and in political argument too. However, I give Nate much leave since your position tries to narrow Nate to a lane that is probably more left and less flexible than Nate really is--it may suit your interest as a Tory--which I tend to be as well--but to be fair--be careful and I applaud Nate for his guts as a liberal/Liberal as well. So should you even if you are correct on most of the history stuff. Hey, for fun, let's talk Brock ans what he says? I know what I think--it is pretty drastic and quite "un-American". Ha! Happy New Yew Year Mate!
I take great comfort in your refusal to regurgitate Carney's mealy-mouthed non-condemnation. You have proven yourself highly principled, which I'm afraid makes you a rarity. Thank you.
Peter, it’s key to Canadian morale that Canadians hear our leaders stand up for the rule of law. Of course the PM shouldn’t be unnecessarily confrontational but appeasement is a mug’s game.
Appeasement--without fail in history as one of you said--"a mug's game". Indeed. e ware of that. We lost people who are buried or in Davey Jones over that one! Aha!
Nate, You have written and also recorded an excellent analytical piece on the current state of affairs vis Canada, geo-politics, U.S. folly, and other rather nasty geo-political and economic concerns dear to our fairly informed
Canadian hearts. Thank you. I agree with every point you made--every single one. Keep it up. Please stay undaunted and steady in your assertions of truth for us all.
Believe it or not this whole situation might be about money. So many countries base their money's value in " comparison" to the American dollar and in central America some places are using the American dollar as the country currency. We need to defend against "comparison" to other sovereign nations. Comparison is a form of abuse. No two persons are a like in sovereignty. Only likeness by agreement. We must defend our uniqueness through agreement not by comparison.
Yes, nonetheless, the writer still makes a valid point in observing that Le Pen is actually articulating a position flowing from her stated nationalist far-right principles, which leads her to oppose the US action in Venezuela, while many others ostensibly espousing such views immediately turned around and argued in favour of interventionism: https://bsky.app/profile/dieworkwear.bsky.social/post/3mbntvx2buc2n
So what this is showing is that Donald's actions in Venezuela are creating a rift on the nationalist far right, or, at least, exposing who might actually be principled and who was just a grifter.
(The article furthermore was initially published on another site, linked at the end. You might not care for that site much either, but it isn't original to the source I linked.)
I do not understand why there isn't any discussion or focus on the fact that the US drug problem is created by the US. If there was a desire to stop the flow of drugs, then the focus should be on the demand, in other words the Americans that are buying it. The problem is not Venezuela or Mexico or Canada, it is the US's own leaky border and lack of desire to address their drug dependency problem. Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on blaming everyone else for the US demand for drugs. Stop the demand, stop the flow, pretty simple. If this was a mainstream, widespread discussion, it would weaken Trumps misinformation about why he really wants tariffs and wars. Time to start repeating it and getting it into the mainstream media.
I so agree with you Mr. Ball. I grew up in the 60's. 70's and 80's when the USA was our friend/neighbour/relative, lived in San Fran for a bit, saw the drug fallout, the so-called War on Drugs, all of which in typical American fashion becomes its own self-serving self-perpetuating industrial complex, much like the military-industrial complex that fed the Vietnam War, the same US formula elsewhere, the Perdue-Oxy big Pharma corruption, the lack of focus and caring to which you alluded that gives rise to a drug problem in the first place. America--sick puppy--needs healing...Indeed, Sir!
Towards the end of 2025 I considered unsubscribing. But I decided that so long as we keep things civil and constructive, my role here is like your mission as an MP - to keep you honest.
With this post, I was not surprised to read your flippant remark at Carney because he "also carefully avoided the obvious fact that the US has no intention of doing anything of the sort." You went on to write that too many other world leaders similarly offered lukewarm reproach.
Nate, we just finished a long run with knee-jerk PM who tweetered what he felt needed to be said, for the world to read. Tweets are for kids. Even if you're right, it's more effective to speak in person about things like this. Can you imagine a senior management team in a company tweetering disagreements for all employees to read. What would you tweetered if you were the PM? And would you have gone on (like you did here) to point out that he was doing it to avoid the Epstein fiasco?
And how can you be sure that Carney didn't speak with Trump and be direct with his concerns? Wouldn't it be more likely that Trump listen and respect a leader who took that approach?
I doubt that my view of Trump is more favourable than yours, but there is absolutely nothing positive that would come from a public critiquing of what he's done in Venezuela.
And you couldn't help yourself to paint the Conservative leader as a fan of Trump. I read his tweeter and he was thumbs up about removing the dictator, but he took the right approach saying that the leader should be the person who had the last election won. Maybe it was his comment 'down with socialism' that got your ire. Hey, have you thrown your hat in to be the leader of the federal NDP party?
Generally, yes. Feels like the US, China and Russia have come to realize there's more in it for each of them to carve the world into three and feign outrage each time one of the bullies takes a whack at a country in 'their territory'. Trump launched dozens of trial balloons about absorbing Canada.
Great observation but what to do? Oh my--I think to tend to trade with china and scare the US. Screw Trump and scare him--he is a bully. yet like Australia, keep China at bey in the homeland so we avoid the other stuff we had with them and to some extent still do. We can stay secure and good and limit our exposure. We did it a long time ago and we can do it again. Plus--perhaps--we just have to dammit! Ouch,eh?!
Great observation but what to do? Oh my--I think to tend to trade with china and scare the US. Screw Trump and scare him--he is a bully. yet like Australia, keep China at bey in the homeland so we avoid the other stuff we had with them and to some extent still do. We can stay secure and good and limit our exposure. We did it a long time ago and we can do it again. Plus--perhaps--we just have to dammit! Ouch,eh?!
Great observation but what to do? Oh my--I think to tend to trade with china and scare the US. Screw Trump and scare him--he is a bully. yet like Australia, keep China at bey in the homeland so we avoid the other stuff we had with them and to some extent still do. We can stay secure and good and limit our exposure. We did it a long time ago and we can do it again. Plus--perhaps--we just have to dammit! Ouch,eh?!
It's not a good precedent at all.
I have noticed distress, anxiety, rationalization and denial, amongst my immigrant and first generation Canadian friends.
This is the whole bully tactic in a nutshell: activate a traumatic response by whatever means, and take whatever you please while the victim remains in freeze.
It's certainly not a 'genius' move by any stretch, and people who call it that are fawning.
Thank you Nate for reminding us that humanity has survived as a species because of cooperation not force, not power-over. In light of the systemic dismantling of the rule of law and other key principles of our imperfect democracies, our elected representatives cannot afford to be lukewarm in using their spheres of influence to call out, "Enough. "
Lena, That's an interesting observation and I applaud your optimism. But what surrounds us today is that the leaders of the 3 most potentially destructive countries on earth would sooner eat you for lunch than share a meal. What's so disappointing is that the USA has lost all sense of what it takes to be good.
I won't make assumptions about who you're referring to as 'our elected representatives'. But I'll pose two questions in response:
1. Do you think that it's possible our PM may have communicated a strong message and he did it directly in conversation with Trump? Nate's comments seem to ignore this possibility and he becomes just another tweeter feeling 'big' and believing this helps his case to position himself as a leader of a party. We need less of this and Nate should be smarter and more careful than that.
2. Calling 'enough' is meaningless unless it includes 'or else'. Leaders like Trump bully when they can. I'm so disgusted with the PM of Britain when he came to grovel to Trump and offered the King's invite to celebrate their relationship. What was he and the King thinking? And part of that play was to get in ahead of Canada, France, Germany, Japan (and every other country) to 'win' the best darn trade deal. Winston Churchill was turning over in his grave. I salute Carney for his resilience - he could have done the same and many countries have followed suit. The tariff thing was the place to make the 'enough' stand - collectively the rest of the world could have made the bully run for cover.
Peter, your points, in particular the two made in reply, are quite apt and accurate both historically and in political argument too. However, I give Nate much leave since your position tries to narrow Nate to a lane that is probably more left and less flexible than Nate really is--it may suit your interest as a Tory--which I tend to be as well--but to be fair--be careful and I applaud Nate for his guts as a liberal/Liberal as well. So should you even if you are correct on most of the history stuff. Hey, for fun, let's talk Brock ans what he says? I know what I think--it is pretty drastic and quite "un-American". Ha! Happy New Yew Year Mate!
I take great comfort in your refusal to regurgitate Carney's mealy-mouthed non-condemnation. You have proven yourself highly principled, which I'm afraid makes you a rarity. Thank you.
What next? Greenland, Columbia, Cuba, ‘maybe’ Mexico … and Canada.
Peter, it’s key to Canadian morale that Canadians hear our leaders stand up for the rule of law. Of course the PM shouldn’t be unnecessarily confrontational but appeasement is a mug’s game.
And appeasement can be downright suicidal, as demonstrated by Chamberlin (2nd World War).
Appeasement--without fail in history as one of you said--"a mug's game". Indeed. e ware of that. We lost people who are buried or in Davey Jones over that one! Aha!
Lest We Forget.
Nate, You have written and also recorded an excellent analytical piece on the current state of affairs vis Canada, geo-politics, U.S. folly, and other rather nasty geo-political and economic concerns dear to our fairly informed
Canadian hearts. Thank you. I agree with every point you made--every single one. Keep it up. Please stay undaunted and steady in your assertions of truth for us all.
Believe it or not this whole situation might be about money. So many countries base their money's value in " comparison" to the American dollar and in central America some places are using the American dollar as the country currency. We need to defend against "comparison" to other sovereign nations. Comparison is a form of abuse. No two persons are a like in sovereignty. Only likeness by agreement. We must defend our uniqueness through agreement not by comparison.
Peace Happy 2026.
how many boats were blown out of the water to distract voters and financial supporters ?
https://bsky.app/profile/cristianfarias.com/post/3mbjlwkmb6c24
Also, every time Donald does something like this, you should increase your guess on the number of minors he abused.
Further, even Marine Le Pen is calling out her fellow-travellers on the nationalist far right: https://www.actforcanada.ca/p/marine-le-pen-is-right-about-venezuela
And on another note, Stephen Miller has all but outright admitted that the US plans to invade Greenland: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mbplld6hxw2z
As a heads up, the website website actforcanada.ca referenced above is associated with the far-right in Canada.
For example, their January 2026 features a “special interview” with Tommy Robinson, the far right British activist.
Yes, nonetheless, the writer still makes a valid point in observing that Le Pen is actually articulating a position flowing from her stated nationalist far-right principles, which leads her to oppose the US action in Venezuela, while many others ostensibly espousing such views immediately turned around and argued in favour of interventionism: https://bsky.app/profile/dieworkwear.bsky.social/post/3mbntvx2buc2n
So what this is showing is that Donald's actions in Venezuela are creating a rift on the nationalist far right, or, at least, exposing who might actually be principled and who was just a grifter.
(The article furthermore was initially published on another site, linked at the end. You might not care for that site much either, but it isn't original to the source I linked.)
I do not understand why there isn't any discussion or focus on the fact that the US drug problem is created by the US. If there was a desire to stop the flow of drugs, then the focus should be on the demand, in other words the Americans that are buying it. The problem is not Venezuela or Mexico or Canada, it is the US's own leaky border and lack of desire to address their drug dependency problem. Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on blaming everyone else for the US demand for drugs. Stop the demand, stop the flow, pretty simple. If this was a mainstream, widespread discussion, it would weaken Trumps misinformation about why he really wants tariffs and wars. Time to start repeating it and getting it into the mainstream media.
I so agree with you Mr. Ball. I grew up in the 60's. 70's and 80's when the USA was our friend/neighbour/relative, lived in San Fran for a bit, saw the drug fallout, the so-called War on Drugs, all of which in typical American fashion becomes its own self-serving self-perpetuating industrial complex, much like the military-industrial complex that fed the Vietnam War, the same US formula elsewhere, the Perdue-Oxy big Pharma corruption, the lack of focus and caring to which you alluded that gives rise to a drug problem in the first place. America--sick puppy--needs healing...Indeed, Sir!
Towards the end of 2025 I considered unsubscribing. But I decided that so long as we keep things civil and constructive, my role here is like your mission as an MP - to keep you honest.
With this post, I was not surprised to read your flippant remark at Carney because he "also carefully avoided the obvious fact that the US has no intention of doing anything of the sort." You went on to write that too many other world leaders similarly offered lukewarm reproach.
Nate, we just finished a long run with knee-jerk PM who tweetered what he felt needed to be said, for the world to read. Tweets are for kids. Even if you're right, it's more effective to speak in person about things like this. Can you imagine a senior management team in a company tweetering disagreements for all employees to read. What would you tweetered if you were the PM? And would you have gone on (like you did here) to point out that he was doing it to avoid the Epstein fiasco?
And how can you be sure that Carney didn't speak with Trump and be direct with his concerns? Wouldn't it be more likely that Trump listen and respect a leader who took that approach?
I doubt that my view of Trump is more favourable than yours, but there is absolutely nothing positive that would come from a public critiquing of what he's done in Venezuela.
And you couldn't help yourself to paint the Conservative leader as a fan of Trump. I read his tweeter and he was thumbs up about removing the dictator, but he took the right approach saying that the leader should be the person who had the last election won. Maybe it was his comment 'down with socialism' that got your ire. Hey, have you thrown your hat in to be the leader of the federal NDP party?
Taiwan for China; Donbas region for Russia; and Cuba and Panama for USA.
Generally, yes. Feels like the US, China and Russia have come to realize there's more in it for each of them to carve the world into three and feign outrage each time one of the bullies takes a whack at a country in 'their territory'. Trump launched dozens of trial balloons about absorbing Canada.
Great observation but what to do? Oh my--I think to tend to trade with china and scare the US. Screw Trump and scare him--he is a bully. yet like Australia, keep China at bey in the homeland so we avoid the other stuff we had with them and to some extent still do. We can stay secure and good and limit our exposure. We did it a long time ago and we can do it again. Plus--perhaps--we just have to dammit! Ouch,eh?!
Great observation but what to do? Oh my--I think to tend to trade with china and scare the US. Screw Trump and scare him--he is a bully. yet like Australia, keep China at bey in the homeland so we avoid the other stuff we had with them and to some extent still do. We can stay secure and good and limit our exposure. We did it a long time ago and we can do it again. Plus--perhaps--we just have to dammit! Ouch,eh?!
Great observation but what to do? Oh my--I think to tend to trade with china and scare the US. Screw Trump and scare him--he is a bully. yet like Australia, keep China at bey in the homeland so we avoid the other stuff we had with them and to some extent still do. We can stay secure and good and limit our exposure. We did it a long time ago and we can do it again. Plus--perhaps--we just have to dammit! Ouch,eh?!