I'd say there are more. Courage the Cowardly Dog? Very much in the lovable loser camp. The Eds from Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy also fit, but I suppose you could say that's a Canadian show.
Indeed, also a great example of a failing bumbling lovable loser who is frequently considered a hero to many Americans is Homer Simpson. Homer Simpson is a hero to many people in America, especially among the working class. It's not a pure example, because Homer does inadvertently succeed often, but it's almost always because of some crazy luck, not because of some skill or even perseverance.
I largely agree with Douglas Adams assessment of the cultural differences. I think it's pretty clear that he is on to something in a general sense. But there are definitely exceptions in my opinion. It's just way too diverse and way too complex a formula to ratchet down in such a narrow way.
> Indeed, also a great example of a failing bumbling lovable loser who is frequently considered a hero to many Americans is Homer Simpson.
Homer maybe the lowest version of a protagonist "loser" tolerable to American viewers, but he still has far too much agency compared to a British loser. "Lisa needs braces" and "Do it for her" are very hero-coded, and would never happen in a universe where the Simpsons are a British family.
Another barometer is American remakes of British shows, where the loser character is given redeeming qualities or circumstances rather than just letting them be the losers they are, such as David Brent vs. Michael Scott in their respective "The Office" roles. I suspect soaked-in-the-wool loser characters don't poll well in American focus groups hired by studios.
That probably also explains the (repeated) failure of American Fawlty Towers remakes - Basil Fawlty is a loser, and Americans can't play them convincingly.
Homer is a great example for this. However, at the end of the day, through all his incompetence and bumbling, he wins. He has a wonderful wife, kids and a home. He has friends and always has an upbeat “winner” attitude. You see him and see a happy, successful person inspite of his failings.
Same with Peter Griffin but he is confident and fiercely dominant. He doesn’t feel like a loser.
Even Michael from the office who is a “loser”, has a lot of redeeming qualities like genuine care for his employees, terrific salesman and a position of leadership.
Great point! Would the Simpsons have done as well had Homer just gotten screwed over and miserable? I would bet not. In the American culture that sort of reality would have shifted the humor into more of a "feels bad man" that probably wouldn't have gone over well.
EEnE had a strangely surrealist quality to it that stands out in my memory. It’s goofy and slapstick, but it’s basically its own little vacuum of a world and even feels slightly unsettling at times. It’s hard to put my finger on it exactly. It tends to veer between Looney Tunes rules and being grounded in reality, but it doesn’t really spend much time making the two compatible. It just kind of swings wildly between them (see: their mouths when they eat jawbreakers).
Now that I think about it, that’s probably partially why there’s that old copy pasta about it being a dystopian setting. It lends itself well to the concept.
I think the fact that the kids are alone and unsupervised basically all the time is what makes it so unsettling. You never see adults in the show. It's always just the same small group of kids. About the only adult interaction with the kids is through sticky notes.
I think that need and loneliness is also expressed in the show. Which is different from other kids shows which are more cartoony (Dexter's Laboratory, for example, though the adults do make appearances)
Now this is making me wonder if there was a shift at some point… as far as I remember, kids shows in the past were mostly about the kids. Ed Ed and Eddy and the Peanuts might have taken this to an extreme as part of the joke. These shows were for kids, and so the kids were the focus.
I wonder if kids shows nowadays feel a need to include more adults because adults are more likely to be watching.
There's a difference between peanuts and the eds. In peanuts, adults were definitely around but the words they said weren't understandable. As a result they basically were just background noise. It wasn't the case that the kids felt unsupervised. They still went to school, rode the bus, talked with their teachers and parents (even if you never saw them.) And they never expressed a feeling like the adults were missing.
In the eds, if you'd said "their parents have long been dead and the kids are clinging on to what was left", it'd fit right into the story. Eds had dark and serious moments around the lack of adults.
Huge difference in tone between the shows, 100% agree. I just think they are both sort of lampshading the fact that they don’t have any focus on adult characters (in completely different ways).
Oh yeah, this is absolutely a thing, though I think it's more to include a potentially additional audience rather than a way to make it fun for the kids. As a parent, I've loved it because it allows me to be able to stand and even get a joke here and there while watching shows with my kids.
No doubt that contributes but there’s also something about the way they interact with each other and how they physically exist in space/the Looney Tunes style physical gags that really stands out to me. It’s often a little… grotesque? Feels like a strong term but it’s the word that comes to mind
This project really should have been the focus of the Russian computing community. I remember reading about it 15 years ago when I was in college, thinking "Wow, free Windows, that sounds useful".
Still not as usable as it needs to be and now the main use case for a lot of Windows machines, gaming, is being taken care of in GNU/Linux.
ReactOS has been very slow to develop, and probably missed the point where it could make an impact. It's still mostly impossible to run on real hardware, and their beta goal (version 0.5 which supports USB, wifi and is at least minimally useful on supported hardware) is still years away. But I never had the impression that gaming was a particularly important focus of the project.
ReactOS is mostly about the reimplementation of an older NT kernel, with a focus on driver compatibility. Their ultimate goal is to be a drop-in replacement for Windows XP such that any driver written for XP would work. That's much more relevant to industrial applications where some device is controlled by an ancient computer because the vendor originally provided drivers for NT 5.0 or 5.1 which don't work on anything modern.
> That's much more relevant to industrial applications where some device is controlled by an ancient computer because the vendor originally provided drivers for NT 5.0 or 5.1 which don't work on anything modern.
In most of those applications, you just leave the computer be and don't touch it. In some cases (especially medical devices) you may not even be allowed to touch it for legal/compliance reasons. If the hardware dies, you most likely find the exact same machine (or something equivalent) and run the same OS - there are many scenarios where replacing the computer with something modern is not viable (lack of the correct I/O interfaces, computer is too fast, etc.)
If there were software bugs which could impact operations, they probably would have arisen during the first few years when there was a support contract. As for security issues - you lock down access and disconnect from any network with public internet access.
All that assumes that ReactOS is a perfect drop-in replacement for whatever version of Windows you are replacing, and that is probably not a good assumption.
In my experience, things like ReactOS would have been more useful in parts of the world with let's say a less thorough approach to things like compliance.
A factory has a CNC machine delivered fifteen years ago that's been run by the same computer all along. The computer eventually gives up the ghost, the original IT guy who got the vendor's drivers and installed them on that computer with an FCKGW copy of WinXP is long gone. Asking the current IT guy, the easiest solution (in a hypothetical timeline where a usable ReactOS exists) is to take the cheapest computer available, install ReactOS, throw in drivers from the original vendor CD at the bottom of some shelf and call it a day.
We might have to agree to disagree here, but I think the scenario where the IT guy uses XP and "finds" a license for it is the approach I would take if I was put in this situation. If the vendor for the CNC machine certified/tested their machine against Windows XP, and does not offer any support for new operating systems, I would be very reluctant to use anything else - whether it is another version of Windows which could accept the same drivers, or an open source clone. Again, I'm assuming that ReactOS manages to be a perfect clone, which is may or may not be in practice.
> But I never had the impression that gaming was a particularly important focus of the project.
> ReactOS is mostly about the reimplementation of an older NT kernel, with a focus on driver compatibility. Their ultimate goal is to be a drop-in replacement for Windows XP such that any driver written for XP would work. That's much more relevant to industrial applications where some device is controlled by an ancient computer because the vendor originally provided drivers for NT 5.0 or 5.1 which don't work on anything modern.
Fifteen years ago, they could have focused on both the industrial and consumer use cases. There were a lot of people who really didn't want to leave Windows XP in 2010-11, even just for their personal use.
Admittedly, FLOSS wasn't nearly as big of a thing back then like it is now. A larger share of GNU/Linux and BSD installs were on servers at the time, so it was a community mainly focused on commercial and industrial applications. Maybe that's what drove their focus.
It functionally is a project from fifteen-twenty years ago. Development activity was somewhat slow but steady but it largely fizzled out around I think 2018? The project tried to get political and financial support of the Russian government but failed to secure it, Aleksey Bragin transitioned to working in the crypto space, and of course with every year the number of potential users dependent on Windows 2000/XP is decreasing.
I think by now ReactOS is best viewed as an enthusiast research / challenge project with no practical use, like GNU Hurd. Just as Hurd is interesting in terms of how kernels can be done, but isn't a viable candidate for practical use, ReactOS is now in the same category. Very interesting as an exercise in reimplementing NT from scratch using clean room techniques but no longer a system that has a shot at gaining any adoption.
That's just it: bullying the rest of the world typically doesn't have drastic negative consequences for an economy.
China's claimed the South China Sea as its sovereign waters and has been using force against fishermen from the nations that actually have control over the water. They're continuing to threaten Taiwan in a purely ideological push. Chinese secret police have set up stations abroad to kidnap dissidents. Border skirmishes with India are not uncommon. The agreement for a democratic Hong Kong was torn up and now they're under the thumb of the CCP, same as the mainland.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and of course Eastern Ukraine in 2022. They haven't had a "real" election in decades. Dissidents die suspiciously with regularity.
Both nations have supported the efforts of North Korea to further its nuclear arsenal in blatant violation of UN resolutions.
With the exception of the invasion of Ukraine, there have been zero negative consequences for any of this behavior.
Both nations have hosted at least one major international sporting event in the last 20 years. China is signing trade deals with Canada and the EU nations because, for some reason, those parties see a totalitarian single-party state as a viable alternative to the US that will never produce a "mad king", when in fact, it's almost tailor-made to do so. Construction on Nordstream 2 started after the invasion of Georgia, specifically because Europeans wanted Russian natural gas. Russian oligarchs continue to hold major interests in European nations and are free to move about the continent. Sanctions against the Russian economy over the invasion of Ukraine are dodged by dealing with intermediate parties so that many nations, including those in Europe, can do business as usual.
If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
> This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
But it doesn't endeavor to ask exactly why the US is behaving this way.
The answer is simple: a mad king. You have a man who thinks the government should be run as his own personal enterprise and is being given license to do so by one of the country's two main political parties. The other half of the country is making it rather clear that they don't approve of this behavior, along with other things happening in the country. There are pictures from the last few days of people protesting while armed in Minnesota.
Tyranny is a problem, obviously, and it's one that has existed as long as power structures have existed in human societies. I can see why Canadians are angry at Trump and the US as a whole. I don't blame you, but if you want to solve the problem of the mad king, you don't sign trade deals that enrich a single-party totalitarian state. You can almost guarantee that come the next international dust-up over something - Oh, just spitballing, maybe freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - the PRC will use that new trade deal as leverage on Canada. It will happen. They will get a return on their investment. That's how authoritarians work.
A deal with literally anyone else would have been better.
But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.
They dont. Republican party supports all of that, fully. Project 2025 came from heretage fund. Supreme court is result of them strategically getting people who support this on it.
Conservatives all like what trump does. Evangelical Christians still support him too.
The stability of the entire country seems to be suspect.
The US just had its longest government shutdown, where the government was non-functional. Yet no politicians appear to have suffered any consequences, and there are rumors of another.
The "checks and balances" of the government seem to be non-functional, as one branch of government claims to have veto power over all other branches.
The populace appears to have no power over their elected representatives, or possibly supports the current turn of events.
> But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.
That's directly due to the mad king. Trump's the head of the party, and he's used to running an organization where no one questions him, because that's what he did at the Trump Organization for decades. If you vote against him - and some GOP senators did recently - you "receive pressure" to change your mind. What does "receive pressure" mean? I'm not in DC and not in politics, so I can't say for sure, but my guess is it can include things like backing primary/caucus candidates that will be a reliable vote for Trump's agenda come the next election cycle, public disparagement on Truth Social, and tacit threats to derail the representatives' personal agendas for their constituents.
Could it be even more direct, like threats of violence or blackmail? Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me with Trump.
This has existed throughout history in a number of systems of government, but it seems especially bad now in the US because you have someone who came from a system where he never had to encounter any sort of resistance who is now running the executive. Prior to Trump, all modern presidents had at least some experience in government, and it was understood that there was bargaining involved in the system.
I've maintained since the 2015 primaries that you simply cannot have someone from the private world be in such a high office, and this is exactly why.
I like to spend a lot of time at the World Happiness Report because it gives me a better sense of economic well-being. You can't just look at GDP, you need a sense of which countries are burning human capital to fuel GDP and generate billionaires. That's a very common short-term tactic, so the WHR gives you a better sense of long-term political stability. Unhappy populations tend to vote for strongmen.
It's basically impossible to get to Finland-levels without bringing everyone along. Not just internally like getting rid of 996, but also including neighbors like Taiwan/Ukraine cause corruption tends to leak back in. Imagine if Bush had spent the Iraq war trillions on high speed rail/free college/ housing. Instead we got ICE.
> If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
Such a person (or the people willing to trust them) would be seen as naïve, though, because any sane person would tell you that's exactly what's been happening since you were born.
To be fair, if you were aware enough to separate the characteristics of wealth and intelligence, you've probably seen the investing world as a casino with ego-stroking suits long before this. The difference between the cigarette-burning retiree surrendering their OASDI check at a casino in Kansas City and Wall Street investors is a diploma from the "right" schools and in the ability to sway the odds in their favor; they both can - and will - destroy themselves or those around them to indulge in their habit.
Any sort of announced intention to "somehow stop the bad actors" became laughable after 2008-2009. We had bankers and financiers kick the monetary legs out from under an entire generation and unless they did something blatantly illegal (read: were Bernie Madoff) none of them faced a consequence.
That's why you have the current situation in the US where scammers can take advantage of distrust in any and all of society's institutions, up to and including the federal government.
> It's symbolism. But it's important symbolism. Far more notable, I think, is Macron saying this morning that Europe needs more investment from China. Canada signing a deal with China to allow their cars to be sold in the country.
The better move would be to invest internally. China wants a hegemony, whether they acknowledge it out loud or not. As Europe and Canada start seeking Chinese investment, the Chinese will seek something in return. They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
I'd also like to think that the American/Western investment in places like China and Russia are part of how we got to where we're at now. It became apparent for Western capital that human rights aren't necessarily compatible with economic growth and can even run contrary to it. Eventually that mindset permeates a society, and it has in the US. A large plurality of the population thinks that a billionaire strongman is necessary to remain competitive in the global marketplace. This mindset didn't show up overnight, it was a slow burn.
Some of it was fueled by the demographic transitions of the last fifty years, some by American economic anxiety - which was caused by American/Western investment in China - and the rest of the West has the same problems in those departments that the US has to one extent or another. The European/Canadian welfare state that provided protection from some of the economic anxiety that was seen in the US must get its funding from somewhere, and you get it from taxing economic expansion. Economic expansion relies on at least some population growth. Right now, you don't see native population growth in most Western countries. They have to have people immigrate in to stay competitive. In pretty much all of these countries, you've seen at least some friction between the "native" population and immigrants. You'll see more of that in the future, and that's how the Canadian/European Trump will show up. Doubly so in Europe, because their nation-states are partially defined in terms of ethnicity.
>the Chinese will seek something in return. They're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
of course they aren't but it's also obvious what they want. Design a new global order where they have a seat at the table and get to determine standards, processes and technologies. That's the point of investing in telecommunications, cars, and so on. But what they don't want is annex European territory.
China is still ambitious enough to imagine itself as creating new international orders rather than just creating disorder, and so they'll likely make for a better partner for any civilized country than powers that descend into 19th century colonial neo-imperialism run by people who may as well come straight out of the Warhammer universe.
> But what they don't want is annex European territory.
They've more-or-less directly supported Russia's ambitions in Ukraine. If they don't want to annex your territory but are willing to support someone who does in the bloodiest war on the continent since the end of WWII, is there really a difference? They know they aren't in a place to project power over Europe, but they have a partner that absolutely is. I'd keep a close eye on how forgiving European countries have to be of Russia in order to curry favor with the Chinese in the coming years.
> so they'll likely make for a better partner for any civilized country than powers that descend into 19th century colonial neo-imperialism run by people who may as well come straight out of the Warhammer universe.
The problem is, deep down, none of that means anything to the ruling class of any European nation. If it did, Russia doesn't get the chance to do anything of consequence internationally after their incursion into South Ossetia in 2008. There would be no ambiguity regarding the future of Taiwan vis-a-vis control under the PRC. There wouldn't be investment deals now.
Wang Yi, when he was in Brussels earlier last year was pretty blunt and said that if China wanted Russia to win the war would be over and given the scale of China's defense and industrial sector that's probably true. They don't actually recognize Russia's territorial gains. From their perspective, this is the middle position. They simply can't afford Russia to lose, they're dealing with their own US problem.
And mind you I'm not very sympathetic what we in Germany call "Russlandversteher" but it's also become clear, the war in Ukraine not withstanding, that Russia isn't an existential military threat. There'll come a time, maybe after Putin is gone, when there's an opportunity to have a security architecture that covers the whole continent. A Europe with Russia even though it's impossible now wouldn't be this vulnerable. And at some point this has to be resolved because it's untenable long term.
Kissinger wrote a book in 1994 Diplomacy where he pointed out that the biggest threat to European independence is over-reliance on the US, not China or Russia simply because of the predominance of the US militarily and economically. And if the US continues to be this beligerent, unlike Russia it is an existential threat.
> Wang Yi, when he was in Brussels earlier last year was pretty blunt and said that if China wanted Russia to win the war would be over and given the scale of China's defense and industrial sector that's probably true. They don't actually recognize Russia's territorial gains. From their perspective, this is the middle position.
I'm sure that's of incredible comfort to the citizens of Ukrainian cities that have missiles raining down upon them; missiles that contain electronics that were made by China as a direct result of Western embargoes. It's the middle position, helping a belligerent tyrant slaughter civilians, in a quest to be tzar in everything but name.
> They simply can't afford Russia to lose, they're dealing with their own US problem.
Of course they can. Same with North Korea. If they'd sworn off those two nations a decade - or more - ago, they'd just be sitting there with sweet Western investment cash and far less American antagonism. But they need those two nations to cause problems, to break rules, and to generally paint the world order as a farce. Otherwise, what vacuum are they to fill? They'd just be a bigger Japan: existing in an America-centric world order, comfortable, downsizing, and utterly without incident. That's not going to give the CCP the external threats it needs to justify its totalitarianism.
> that Russia isn't an existential military threat.
> Kissinger wrote a book in 1994 Diplomacy where he pointed out that the biggest threat to European independence is over-reliance on the US
Ah, that old ghoul. The very embodiment of interests over values. Hopefully a Cambodian child is dropping bombs on Kissinger's village somewhere.
Regardless, his assessment is flawed. The US begged, for decades, other NATO members to take defense seriously after the creation of the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War. With the exception of former Warsaw Pact countries that wanted to make damned sure the Russians stayed out, that seemed to fall on deaf ears until relatively recently. During the pustule's time in office, there has been discussion of moving the strategic focus from Germany, which was not particularly warmly received in the area around Ramstein. [0]
As for whether or not the Russians are an existential threat, well, for now, no. Despite Trump's best efforts, at least as of this writing, Article 5 still exists and any sort of mass movement towards NATO territory by Russia would likely quickly decay into a thermonuclear war that would involve the entirety of the American and Russian strategic arsenals. Life on this planet as we know it would be over. Get rid of that - and the pustule seems like he wants to - and there would be no effective counter against Russian WMD forces, because they would have an advantage over France and the UK in such a conflict. The likelihood of Russia becoming an existential threat increases if NATO's current configuration breaks apart.
Any time someone has thermonuclear warheads pointed at your cities, they're an existential threat. I'll leave it to you to guess whether the US or Russia has more targets in central and western Europe.
>they'd just be sitting there with sweet Western investment cash and far less American antagonism
no they wouldn't, we know this because we here in Europe are facing American antagonism and a trade war right now and we're American allies. The Chinese on this have been vindicated, not only has the United States been waging a trade war on China, it's now waging a trade war with threats of annexation on her allies. They were right and we were naive.
I'm not claiming China is morally spotless or doesn't clash with us on countless of issues, but they act rationally, long term in their own interest, and their view of the world is being vindicated by the week at this point. If I was China I'd keep Russia and North Korea around as a buffer too if I saw what the US pulls on their friends.
Mind you Denmark is a country that lost soldiers for the US when Article 5 was invoked. The US is the only country to actually invoke it. They were so absurdly pro-American they spied on us for the US[1]. And this is what you get for it? If that's how the biggest military power and up until now guarantor of global order acts, yeah people are going to hedge their bets quickly. Russia is weirdly enough small fish in comparison.
As the popular practice shows, the first and only duty of a for-profit company is to create returns for shareholders.
If you do that ethically, fine. If you're not sure if it's ethical, try anyways. If it's unethical, do it. If it's illegal, do the cost-benefit analysis of what the punishment would cost the shareholders.
That's how these people think, and it's a direct threat to the liberty and well-being of our society.
EDIT:
Downvote me all you want, but look around. That's how many of the people at the top of companies think as evidenced by their companies' behavior.
> the first and only duty of a for-profit company is to create returns for shareholders
That's a choice, not a law of nature. We can make law that changes that. Individual executives can push back. Society at large can change norms and expectations.
Why would we choose the nightmare world where profit must come first?
The only reason you hear this argument deployed seriously is when the person saying it has their own motivations for wanting profit to be supreme.
What I meant in that last sentence is that the powerful don't really think that. It's a line they trot out when they want to justify why some company must do the thing that they want it to. The same powerful people are happy to ignore shareholder supremacy when it conflicts with their desires. Then suddenly it's "the CEO has to have the leeway to make long term decisions" or "The company is committed to supporting the national security mission" or whatever is convenient.
People can downvote my original comment all they want, but understand, that is the mindset of people like Mark Zuckerberg. Make money any way possible.
If you think the average American has any real control over what comes out of the White House these days, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas City to sell you.
We can't give up our power just because the situation is difficult. We need to assert as much power as possible. Organize; talk openly about the problem; coordinate plans for voting (yes, I know its early). Pressure politicians. There are things individuals can do, right now. No, it's not enough on our own. But if we don't act as individuals, then we really are screwed.
When you sell them a technological solution to their problem, they expect it to work. When it doesn't, someone needs to be responsible for it.
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any of the current AI leaders being like, "Yeah, you're right, this solution didn't meet your customer's needs, and we'll eat the resulting costs." They didn't get to be "thought leaders" in the current iteration of Silicon Valley by taking responsibility for things that got broken, not at all.
So that means you will need to take responsibility for it, and how can you make that work as a business model? Well, you pay someone - a human - who knows what they're looking at to review at least some of the code that the AI generates.
Will some of that be AI-aided? Of course. Can you make a lot of the guesswork go away by saying "use commonly-accepted design patterns" in your CLAUDE.md? Sure. But you'll still need someone to enforce it and take responsibility at the end of the day if it screws up.
You are thinking in terms of the next few years not the next few centuries. Plenty of software sold today fails to meet expectations and no one eats costs.
That's a lie, people will eventually find a way out, it was always like that, being it open source or by innovating and eventually leave the unable to innovate tech giants dying. We have Linux and this year will be the most exciting for the Linux desktop given how bad the Windows situation is
Only been hearing that for twenty years and these tech giants are bigger than they’ve ever been.
I remember when people said Open Office was going to be the default because it was open source, etc etc etc. It never happened. Got forked. Still irrelevant.
I said "being it open source or by innovating" eg Google innovated and killed many, also contributed a lot to open source. Android is a Linux success, ChromeOS too. Now Google stinks and it is not innovating anymore, except for when other companies, like OpenAI, come for their lunch. Google was caught off guard but eventually catching up. Sooner or later, big tech gets eaten by next big tech. I agree if we stop innovating that would never happen, like Open Office is the worst example you could have picked
I get that this is seen as a "practical" move north-of-the-border, but understand, this is the kind of move that guys like Trump, Putin, and Xi all require. They want this kind of thing to happen, because it shows the real issue was never one of democratic values and human rights. If Canadians valued that then their PM wouldn't be inking a deal with China in response to what Trump is doing. There would be some sort of deal with Europe, perhaps, but not China.
The next time the Canadian government brings up some sort of issue with the treatment of Canadians by ICE or some other kind of issue, you can bet that the horse trading will involve a reference to the fact that this deal happened.
That's already more-or-less the rationale in Trump's dealings with Europe: for all of the complaining about Russia as a threat or the sanctity of NATO and how the Greenland affair threatens all of that, there was a solid 15-year-long run where the continent was more than happy to buy petroleum products off the Russians while ignoring escalating human rights violations in Russia along with incursions into South Ossetia and the Donbas.
He picks up on these sorts of deals as hypocrisy based in realpolitik, and will exploit it.
The US just kidnapped a head of state. It attacked Iran a little while ago. No matter to Canada or Europe though—that’s not them. But Greenland? Oh my, that’s not the Second or Third World. That’s us.
Values? Values talk. Only.
People will belly-ache about the bogeymen Russia and China. And it will work because they’re bogeymen. Not because of values. Values is just a mutually self-reinforcing delusion.
Trump doesn't care about values at all, he cares about money more than anyone else does. I find it laughable you can even talk about values whilst having that main in charge of your country.
And so what if he turns around and goes "ha your values are worthless". Trump is a literal paedophile and a literal rapist. Why should we accept being brow beat by such a man? So? We're moving on without you.
> Trump doesn't care about values at all, he cares about money more than anyone else does.
That's exactly what I'm saying. He's going to use this sort of deal as an example to Canadians that when it all comes down to it, they're no better than he is. He's going to say that you're perfectly fine talking trade deals with authoritarians who are literally abducting Chinese nationals on Canadian soil and doing God-knows-what with them [0], so long as the money is right.
I think you are giving Trump way too much credit. He is a much simpler man - he sees a weakness or some leverage, then he will use that for financial gain. No more than that.
reply