A lone figure takes to the stage, a giant maple leaf flag rippling on a screen behind him as he gingerly approaches the microphone.
“I’m not a lumberjack, or a fur trader,” he tells the crowd. “I have a prime minister, not a president. I speak English and French, not American. And I pronounce it ‘about’ – not ‘a boot’.”
The crowd, indifferent at first, grows increasingly enthusiastic as the man works his way through a catalogue of Canadian stereotypes, passing from diffidence to defiance before the climactic cry: “Canada is the second largest landmass! The first nation of hockey! And the best part of North America! My name is Joe! And I am Canadian!”
In response, Canadians have taken to acts of patriotism, small and large: one pilot flew his small plane in the shape of a maple leaf; sports fans have booed US teams; hats insisting “Canada is not for sale” have gone viral; consumers have pledged to buy only Canadian-made products – a pledge skewered in a viral sketch in which one shopper berates another for buying American ketchup.
Trump is sticking a wrench into Canada’s conservative party, I just hope it’s enough
I truly believe it will be, if for no other reason than we’re currently watching a preview from Trump on what will happen to us if PP is elected. And most of us don’t want a wiff of that shit crossing the border.
I just like knowing I could fly a Canadian flag again, or have it’s likeness displayed without being confused for a trucker convoy supporter, vaccine denier, or racist.
my sincere congratulations, from an american
Fly your flag along with a pride flag 🇨🇦🏳️🌈
Dude! Why have I not thought of this???
I am not a Canadian, but may I humbly suggest that responding to asshole American right-wing attacks by being as rude as possible in French would be quite the patriotic response?
Throw down your English-speaking Canadian “sorry” chains and be rude like the Quebecois!
Tabernac!
“I fucking hate Quebec”
Asinine ass kissing troll
Bagel, munching rope pisser
Up yours derelict vacuum
You’re starting to take a hostel tone
My act of patriotism is to listen to Classified’s Oh Canada
“Lone” surge
The ancient Molson ad resurfaces like a rusty beer can pried open by desperation. Nothing unites a colony like the specter of assimilation – watching Canadians clutch their maple leafs while their indigenous neighbors mutter “first time?” through gritted teeth. This performative flag-waving reeks of settler amnesia, conveniently forgetting whose treaties still gather dust in federal drawers.
Patriotism as crisis merchandise always sells best when manufactured abroad. The real sovereignty play? Redirect that viral “#BuyCanadian” energy toward dismantling the Indian Act. But that would require settlers to confront their own annexation legacy rather than cosplaying Mounties at FIFA matches.
The ad guy gets it half-right – national identity remains a work-in-progress. Progress demands more than hockey nostalgia. Actual decolonization beats any beer commercial script.
You are right.
Still doesn’t change the fact that the US won’t respect any Indigenous people if they invade.
I guarantee you that the best approach for Indigenous people is not through working with the US.
For the sake of Canada and Indigenous people everywhere, we must pull together to create a united front to fend off this enemy.
It reeks of the Genocide Joe screechers all over again.
This dude is actually very liberal, take that as you will. Hates conservatives, communists, anarchists. Might be a libertarian? His posting history is… wild to say the least.
Cool. So how does any of this specifically address potential annexation of Canada by the USA?
The annexation fantasy is a distraction for people like you who can’t grasp nuance. You want a tidy answer to a messy reality. Canada’s sovereignty isn’t threatened by tanks rolling over the border; it’s eroded by trade deals, cultural imperialism, and the slow bleed of colonial inertia.
Your question reeks of intellectual laziness. Annexation isn’t about maps changing—it’s about systems of control already in place. If you think this is just about flags and borders, you’re missing the point entirely.
Go ahead, keep mocking. It’s easier than confronting how deeply assimilation has already sunk its teeth into the bones of this country.
Okay, so none of what you said addresses that problem. And instead you’re burying your head in the sand and calling that threat a “fantasy”.
What’s not a fantasy is that Trump says he wants to annex Canada, will use economic force to accomplish this, and is following that up with tariffs. Clearly not a fantasy—very real.
People are already losing their jobs. Price of food is increasing. And folks like Danielle Smith’s answer is to just take it lying down.
Your basic response to all this is to do some finger wagging.
Oh, so you’re doubling down on this nonsense? Let me break it down for you, slowly, since nuance seems to escape you. Trump saying he wants to annex Canada is about as real as a toddler declaring they’re the king of the playground. Words don’t equal action, and tariffs are not tanks.
You’re conflating economic pressure with literal invasion because it’s easier than understanding how these systems work. People are losing jobs and food prices are rising because of global capitalism, not some cartoonish annexation plot. But sure, blame Danielle Smith for not flailing around like a headless chicken.
Your entire argument is built on fear-mongering and bad takes. Maybe try reading a book instead of parroting propaganda.
Trump is saying it.
His party is saying it.
The Canadian Government is saying it.
The Provincial Governments are saying it.
You are the one who has their head buried in the ground. This is real.
So, your rebuttal is to repeat the same baseless claim louder, as if volume equals validity? Let me spell it out: just because someone says something doesn’t make it actionable policy. Political theater thrives on hyperbole, and you’ve swallowed it whole.
The Canadian government isn’t cowering in fear of annexation; they’re navigating economic realities while you’re busy waving imaginary battle flags. Provincial governments have their own agendas, none of which involve preparing for a fictional invasion.
Your insistence on treating rhetoric as reality is the intellectual equivalent of shouting at clouds. Maybe step back, take a breath, and realize that not every soundbite is a declaration of war.
Only a fool doesn’t believe when some tells them their intentions and is surprised when it happens.
If I am wrong, I will be happy that I was prepared for the worst.
If you are wrong, your world will be crumbling because you don’t want to imagine that you are wrong.
I hope you are right. At least I will be ready if you are wrong.
Trump saying he wants to annex Canada is about as real as a toddler declaring they’re the king of the playground
Anything Trump says should be taken seriously because even if he’s a toddler, he’s a toddler with guns.
Words don’t equal action, and tariffs are not tanks.
Words are the precursors to action. What starts with tariffs can later become tanks.
You’re conflating economic pressure with literal invasion because it’s easier than understanding how these systems work.
No, you are conflating economic pressure with literal invasion.
I, on the other hand, am saying these threats should be taken seriously, economic force is still force, and things can get worse. For that reason, we should take the threat seriously.
People are losing jobs and food prices are rising because of global capitalism, not some cartoonish annexation plot
What if I told you it’s because of global capitalism and a cartoonish annexation plot?
Your entire argument is built on fear-mongering and bad takes.
My argument is based on things said very publicly by the President of the United States in a very official capacity.
Maybe try reading a book instead of parroting propaganda.
You are what Trump and his ilk see as a “useful fool”.
“Anything Trump says should be taken seriously because even if he’s a toddler, he’s a toddler with guns.”
So now we’re treating every tantrum as a declaration of war? Guns don’t make fantasies real—they just make them louder. If Trump is a toddler with guns, then you’re the one running around screaming “the sky is falling” every time he opens his mouth.
“Words are the precursors to action. What starts with tariffs can later become tanks.”
Ah, the classic slippery slope fallacy. Tariffs are economic tools, not invasion prep. If you think tanks follow tariffs, I’d love to see your evidence—oh wait, there isn’t any. Just fear-mongering dressed up as insight.
“No, you are conflating economic pressure with literal invasion.”
Cute deflection. Economic force is force, but it’s not annexation. You’re the one conflating trade policies with military aggression because it’s easier than understanding how these systems actually work.
“I, on the other hand, am saying these threats should be taken seriously, economic force is still force, and things can get worse. For that reason, we should take the threat seriously.”
Taking threats seriously doesn’t mean blowing them out of proportion. Economic force is real and damaging, but it’s not tanks rolling across borders. Stop pretending your paranoia is pragmatism.
“What if I told you it’s because of global capitalism and a cartoonish annexation plot?”
Then I’d tell you to stop watching propaganda and start engaging with reality. Global capitalism doesn’t need cartoonish annexation plots—it’s already got you chasing shadows while it ransacks your house.
“My argument is based on things said very publicly by the President of the United States in a very official capacity.”
And mine is based on understanding how power works beyond soundbites. Public statements are theater; policy is where the real game happens. But sure, keep quoting Trump like he’s Nostradamus.
“You are what Trump and his ilk see as a ‘useful fool.’”
Projection much? You’re the one amplifying his noise and doing his work for him by spreading fear instead of clarity. If I’m a fool, at least I’m not one dancing to someone else’s tune.
Here’s a thought: stop treating every tweet like it’s a prophecy and start focusing on the actual systems of control already in place. You’re fighting imaginary battles while the real war rages on unnoticed.
So now we’re treating every tantrum as a declaration of war?
Your entire method of argument is to gaslight, throw red herrings, and make shit up.
Nobody mentioned “declarations of war”.
What we have mentioned are threats. And threats should be perceived as threats. It is foolish to not take them seriously.
Guns don’t make fantasies real—they just make them louder.
Hate to tell you this, buddy, but the guns are real.
Ah, the classic slippery slope fallacy. Tariffs are economic tools, not invasion prep.
Right, because the USA never used economics as a weapon prior to an invasion. Oh wait. They have. That’s pretty much the textbook for how they operate.
Now I never said the USA will invade Canada, but you would be foolish to not consider the possibility and plan accordingly.
So it’s time to stop dismissing these annexation threats as “fantasy” and get real about how Trump might try to make this happen.
Cute deflection. Economic force is force, but it’s not annexation.
When Trump says he wants to annex Canada, and will use economic force to do this—following it up with tariffs—what will happen once that economic force doesn’t work?
Taking threats seriously doesn’t mean blowing them out of proportion.
Thing is, you’re not taking these threats seriously at all. You’re simply saying they won’t happen.
I literally asked you the simple question of how any of this addresses Trump’s annexation threats and you called them a “fantasy”.
Then I’d tell you to stop watching propaganda and start engaging with reality.
Right, “reality”. 🙄
And mine is based on understanding how power works beyond soundbites. Public statements are theater; policy is where the real game happens. But sure, keep quoting Trump like he’s Nostradamus.
Nostradamus is dead and buried. Trump is alive and has guns.
Projection much?
Fools are always certain of themselves.
You’re right about these very real issues and that they’re the primary driver but I think you’re wrong about considering armed annexation to be unrealistic. I think all of us are on a gut feel about it at this point and some of us have shifted our assessment from being a distraction to a real even if not very likely possibility.
The annexation idea feels like a shortcut—a way to simplify a complex web of issues into something tangible, like borders or armies. But sovereignty isn’t just about physical lines; it’s about the erosion happening under the surface through economic and cultural dependency. That’s where the real fight is, and it’s already well underway.
I get the gut feeling, but relying on it risks missing the bigger picture. Armed annexation might make for dramatic speculation, but it distracts from the subtler, more insidious ways control is exerted. Let’s focus energy on understanding and addressing those deeper systems rather than chasing unlikely scenarios.
Here’s the thing: sovereignty is slipping away quietly, not with a bang but with a shrug. That’s worth more attention.
Dunno if you’ve noticed, but the POTUS has crested the lift hill on the roller coaster of dementia and is gaining kinetic energy into the first turn. Months ago, he lost the ability to process metaphorical language (like my first sentence), which we saw when he promised to build an actual, literal dome over the United States like the one Israel has over it; or when he described in concrete terms the actual operation of the giant faucet in British Columbia that Canada uses to control water to the U.S. West Coast. The thing about dementia, having seen it first-hand in a family member, is that there will be good days and bad days, so even if we see him appearing to have it together (and it’s not just from a teleprompter), there are days on which a complex issue by itself will totally escape him— much less a complex web of such issues. And those days will be coming much more often as time goes on and he continues to deteriorate.
That is to say, if your gut feeling was developed during his first term, don’t trust it. He doesn’t have the capacity for that kind of nuanced cunning any longer. If he’s talking about annexation now, take it at face value. Take everything he says as literal now.
If dementia is the lens through which you’re viewing this, you’re missing the forest for the trees. The erosion of sovereignty isn’t about one figurehead’s cognitive decline; it’s about the systems that thrive on distraction while consolidating control. Focusing on the president’s mental state is like critiquing the paint job on a collapsing house—it’s irrelevant to the structural rot.
Literalism in politics is a trap. Whether it’s annexation or some other overt act, it’s rarely about what’s said. It’s about what’s left unsaid: the quiet deals, dependencies, and shifts that dismantle autonomy piece by piece. Sovereignty doesn’t vanish in a headline-grabbing moment; it dissolves in the shadows.
Stop chasing symptoms. Start dissecting the disease.
Franky, I read all of your comments here, and the main message that comes through is a lot of vague specifics with the subtext of, “I am very smart.”
Yes, we know there’s a bigger picture, but bigger pictures are easier to focus on when the details don’t include bombs falling.
If one is on the table both are on the table, don’t be stupid. They are following a well established playbook that utilizes both. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-role-of-economic-instability/
If one is on the table, both are on the table? That’s a lazy oversimplification. The “playbook” you’re referencing isn’t some universal cheat sheet—it’s a patchwork of tactics tailored to specific circumstances. Treating armed annexation and economic manipulation as interchangeable tools is reductive. They serve different purposes, with vastly different consequences.
You’re conflating methods with outcomes. Annexation is overt, designed to dominate visibly. Economic dependency is covert, engineered to erode sovereignty from within. The latter is far more insidious because it doesn’t provoke the same resistance. Stop pretending they’re two sides of the same coin—they’re not even in the same currency.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
While you’re not wrong, this is exactly how nothing ever gets done. The whataboutism of pointing to another problem whenever any issue comes up is a surefire way to ensure that both problems never get dealt with. It’s not only destructive because of this though, the other issue is that the person that started derailing the positive momentum obtains a false sense of accomplishment, and they harm the cause that they were originally fighting for. So while your cause is valid, you’re coming about it in the most destructive way that won’t help anyone. If you truly care about indigenous rights, you should take a solutions-oriented approach instead of one of negativity and vitriol.
So your solution to centuries of systemic erasure is… tone policing? The irony of demanding “positivity” while sidestepping the core issue is almost poetic. The problem isn’t the delivery; it’s the refusal to engage with uncomfortable truths.
You talk about “getting things done,” but progress doesn’t sprout from feel-good platitudes. It comes from dismantling the structures that necessitate this critique in the first place. If calling out settler colonialism feels destructive, maybe it’s because the foundation was rotten to begin with.
This isn’t about “false accomplishment”—it’s about accountability. If you’re more concerned with the tone than the content, you’re not advocating for solutions; you’re advocating for silence.
Nope. I’m just saying the way you’re approaching this will absolutely not work and actually harms the cause you fight for more than it helps. The more rhetoric and logical fallacies you use, the larger a divide you create.
If the “way I’m approaching this” is the problem, then what you’re really saying is that discomfort is the enemy, not injustice. The divide you speak of isn’t created by rhetoric—it’s been there all along, carved by centuries of exploitation and denial. Pretending that softer words will bridge it is a delusion.
This isn’t about “fighting for more than it helps”; it’s about refusing to sanitize truth for the sake of palatability. If calling out systemic rot feels divisive, maybe it’s because you’re standing on the wrong side of the fracture. Solutions don’t come from coddling; they come from confrontation.
