Jen with the HL Mencken-worthy quote of the year: "They're not running against Donald Trump, they are Kamala Harris". Awesome.
And forget Wayne Gretzky; the under-looked wildcard that could save our asses is the relationship between Jamil Jivani and JD Vance.
Now let me take issue with Matt's de-facto accusation that people are selling out by supporting someone who would mock a disabled individual. With all due respect this analysis came across as simplistic for a few reasons.
First there seems to be a bit of a failure of imagination here. Put yourself in the shoes of average Joe American. Maybe he works in a factory or a trade or some other blue collar occupation. He's just going about his business unaware that some women now have penises and he sees two candidates for President. One is a crass, uncouth, thin-skinned, narcissistic bully who, among other failings, *mocks a disabled person who Joe doesn't know*. The other embodies/represents the smug, condescending, self-righteous, HR lady who *refers to Joe himself as a bigot/racist/misogynist* for not accepting that some women have penises (and the other accompanying woke drivel). Pretty easy for me to see why Joe is going to have more disdain for the embodiment of the HR lady coming for him with false accusations than the narcissistic bully picking on someone he doesn't know - basic human nature in operation.
Second, he suggests that having sold one's soul on the basis of overlooking a serious personality flaw in order to get one's policy preference(s), that person will then be forever compromised, justifying ensuing bad behaviour on the basis of other ensuing good policies. This is hypothetical and is ultimately nothing more than an accusation that "partisan's gonna' partisan". Huge numbers of people identify themselves as either Democrat or Republican. The problem starts THERE - once you have made *that* mistake you are likely to have your ensuing judgment forever compromised. If Matt is saying that Republicans did/are-going-to overlook all sorts of BS from a Republican President you'll get no argument from me. Of course the same can obviously be said about Democrats.
But unaffiliated non-partisans of the type Matt seemed to be speaking of were presumably deciding based on the information available at this moment in time that they thought a Trump presidency would be superior to a Harris presidency by a margin that made up for Trump's grotesque personality flaws. I don't think it leads to the conclusion that all those non-partisans are willing to overlook any and all future moral mis-steps by Trump. Some will. But to write off everybody in that way is presumptuous in my view. And but for single-issue voters, deciding who to vote for invariably comes down to making trade-offs as the available information changes - I didn't get the seeming disdain for voters who engage in trade-offs. Nothing wrong with being a single issue voter but also nothing wrong with not being a single-issue voter.
I have no issue with anyone voting against Trump based solely on his crassness, his conduct leading to the January 6 madness or a myriad of other reasons. But I don't think it's fair to write off everyone who voted for him as a blind partisan who doesn't give a hoot about his obvious personality defects.
Gordo, with respect, you aren't taking issue with what I said. You're just repeating it. I've told everyone that I accept that people looked at Trump, looked at the alternatives, and chose him. I don't harbour any doubts about what happened. I don't need it explained with a hypothetical Joe American in a factory or the trades. I just think they chose stupidly. You aren't actually responding to the point I made. You're just repeating it.
I also never wrote them off as blind partisans. Trump clearly has cross-partisan appeal. The issue here isn't partisanship. It's a judgment of personal decency and all of us setting our own marker on what level of (mis)conduct we can live with.
I also never said people would overlook any/all infractions. I'm sure everyone would have a red line. But it's clear that for 75 million Americans, the totality of Mr. Trump's misconduct so far does not yet exceed the limits of that red line, and that's ... well, I'll channel Jen. That's a choice they can make. I made a different one.
Very well said. Think of all the grotesqueries our current leader has shown -- groping a reporter, blackface, ethics violations, JWR and Jane, repeatedly calling Canadians racists, misogynists and maybe most famously "Thank you for your donation". Oops - I just proved Matt's point -- Liberals are willing to overlook any moral missteps.
It is easy to find Liberals who criticize Trudeau over his scandals- much easier than it is to find Republicans who acknowledge Trump's worst behaviours. It's just not easy to find Liberal *MPs* who criticize Trudeau (due to the kind of discipline in virtually every major Canadian party).
Wrong, check out the intervention incident between a fan, and Trudeau talking to Paul Wells. Check out how he dealt with Rebould, Philpott and other women in parliament.
You make some good points Gordo. Thanks. I also chuckled at Jen’s comment that the Liberals will be Kamala Harris in the next election. I’m not sure they get that at this point.
I also share your thoughts about dismissing Trump solely because of his crassness. Moral considerations are part of my political decision making for sure but only part (so I guess I’m one of those who is ok with overlooking A and to get B). My main decision point in the next election will be getting the Liberals out of power. Their moral failings are a part of that but mostly it’s over what they’ve done to our country. That’s not to say I think any other governing party will necessarily uphold a higher moral standard (which I will note in subsequent elections).
I can't know for sure that I would have voted for Trump if I was American... but anecdotally, I know many American women who held their nose while they chose him bc he said he'll stop so-called gender affirming surgeries in minors, and stop allowing men to self-identify into women's prisons.
Kamala thought she could just stop talking about trans and the issue would go away. she should have addressed her actual plans so people could have compared apples to apples. she didn't/couldn't bc even one slightly critical word is enough to be labelled a transphobe.
I am not a Trump supporter but come on guys, the sun came up on Wednesday. Yes things will change and we may not like all the changes in the US but trying to say that conscripts will be marching in the streets in a few yeaars time is a bit much. We have let our obligations to the world devolve into sound bites and virtue signalling. We were more interested in putting gender, lgbtqetc. and racial language in the Trade Agreement that we lost out on our arguing points. The LPC government has been way too interested in shovelling money to all sorts of groups instead of saying 'you know folks, you have to work for a living. We can't provide everything for you'. Instead too many groups stand with hands out cryuing poor me and the money flows (don't get me started on LPC folkls lining their pockets with our tax dollars).
We voted for Trudeau and his box of skittles ministers and we are now looking at paying a huge financial price for the debt we have let alone the debt we will incurr to fix all the issues.
Oh, question: who are these boomer women who support Trudeau - I'll wait while you round a few up ... The women that I know in the 60 - 80 age range detest Justin - OK, except for my 92 year old mother-in-law. Seriously, where are these boomer women???
Your point about policing and anti-Jewish protests is spot on but don't stop there Matt and Jen. Only ONE person ahs been found guilty of arson in the burning of ONE of the 500 plus churches that wre burned protesting residential schools. I am not aware of anyone who has been found guilty of blocking rail lines, highways, destroying construction equipment on pipelines, shooting synagogues or Jewish schools and similar actions. If you are seeing a pattern of 'left wing protest good, right wing protest bad' yo9u are seeing the light. Our country is being divided along colour/sexual orientation/religious/ethnic/gender/immigrant/foreign student and any other line you care to mention and there is not ONE politicialn or police service that is willing to take the bull by the horns and start enforcing the rules as defined by Canada. We seem to want to placate every group of folks who feel they are victims or have been told that they are victims.
It is not just the police who are not standing up for the silent majority - it is ourpoliticians and the voting public who are not saying enough. Jobs, security of self and border, a decent job, a roof over our heads and a live and let live attitude is what Canada is about but we have lost sight of that and each day more and more of it slips away.
Anyway, rant over. Remember that Monday is a day of Remembrance for those who fought, suffered and died to protect the freedoms that we have enjoyed. Please attend a service on Monday, donate to the poppy campaigns, Thank a vetreran or current member of the services, and wear a poppy proudly. If you cannot attend a service then at least stand at attention with your head down, eyes closed and say a prayer that we never have to send our youth to war again and do it at 1100 hrs on Monday.
The spinelessness of today's Canada will ensure that the war will come to us. In reality, one set of aggressive invaders is already here. Cossetted and protected by various resolutions. Reminder: you voted in the politicians who allowed this.
I don’t think Matt was suggesting that all Boomer women support Trudeau. He’s talking statistically. The polls I’ve seen show that the cohort that still shows the highest relative support for Trudeau is the Boomers, and women generally support Trudeau (and the NDP) more than men. I’m an Albertan male and consider myself a conservative, but I know lots of women that fit that description. Some of them are even friends. I imagine that Matt, living in central Toronto, is swamped by boomer women that still hang on to the Trudeau myth.
I understand your point Ken and was not suggesting that the stats are wrong just that I have not met a boomer female JT supporter despite knowing many in the age bracket. Point of fact, my better half was a PET supporter (surprising for an Edmontonian but there ya go) and she detests JT.
You’ve nailed it! Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking. And I am sick of hearing ‘boomer women.’ I live in Alberta, am a woman, am a boomer. Come say that to my face, if you dare.
"Only ONE person has been found guilty of arson in the burning of ONE of the 500 plus churches that were burned protesting residential schools."
Sorry, there have not been 500+ church arsons protesting residential schools. Yes, there have been 500+ suspected arsons of ALL places of worship (not just churches, but synagogues, temples & mosques) since 2010! Just because arson is suspected doesn't make it fact.
Kaycee, you are correct but my point was that there has been very few successful investigations leading to charges or successful prosecutions. I used 'churches' as a catch all for places of worship. Compared to 'right wing' protests like the truck convoy, 'left wing' protests are largely ignored and, indeed, encouraged.
Statistically, the only ridings the Liberals have any chance of winning are those consisting of rich Boomers. That is not to say everyone of them supports him, but they are his last refuge.
I hear ya Mr Hilton but even rich boomers have to know what tax increases they are looking at and have been paying for a few years now. I thought boomers were an educated generation ...
- Post WW2 peace and prosperity has been created protected and paid for by the American State and the American people.
- in the 90 year post year period America has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate share (per capita) in blood and treasure to guarantee this peace and prosperity for the West.
- The world has treated America in this time like a rich friend or acquaintance, and most countries at this point are and have been behaving in an entitled and disrespectful way. No one has offered to pick up the dinner tab in a long time… the best they can hope for is that someone offers to split the bill. And this under the backdrop that we’re not hard up for it.
- While America has been looking out for everyone else, they haven’t been looking after their own. People will tolerant being taken advantage of as long as their own prosperity continues to stay intact/grow. But for much of the American population- this is no longer true. Union factory jobs have been turned into Walmart cashier positions. Urban centers look like parts of the world American soldiers are sent to fight in.
We (Canadian’s) have taken advantage of our neighbour for some time, and we’ve been quite ungrateful and condescending while we’ve done it. If we show America the respect it deserves, honor our commitments, act in the spirit of good faith, fairness and shared commitment. We will join it in a renewed period of shared prosperity. However, if we instead condescend, whine or act surprised when they ask us to carry our weight and pick up our end of the tab… well Canada. Get ready, it’s a cold hard world out there when you don’t have friends at your side.
The problem isn't that the above is wrong... It's that it's incomplete because it leaves out what the Americans got in return for enforcing the western world order... they got to dictate foreign policy for the west.
Wow that episode was bleak even by The Line standards. Let me try to paint a slightly more optimistic picture:
Trump takes office Jan 20 and the next Canadian election is planned for October. I don't think the Canada relationship is near the top of Trump's priorities so it's possible the Liberals can tread water for that time. Presumably at that point the Conservatives take over and Poilievre's popularity among those in Trump's orbit and his similar populist style could be an asset in forming a good relationship with Trump. Now I think you're bang on we can no longer get by just on friendship and need to sell the US on our value as a partner both economically and militarily. That will mean giving up some autonomy : trade concessions, meeting NATO target, no more freelancing foreign policy, and we'll have to follow the US on things like tariffs and border controls. I don't love that loss of autonomy on principle, but in practice what parts of "Canadian independence" are we likely to be giving up? Supply management? Our incomprehensible policy on Israel? The 20-year timeframe to replace fighter-jets? Our broken immigration policies? And hopefully the US's new isolationist stance means we won't be dragged into a war.
I'm nervous at the worst-case possibilities as well, but I can imagine various outcomes like above that work out okay for Canada. Somewhat ironically, Trump's election makes me more likely to vote for Poilievre - no guarantee he handles the situation well, but I have more faith than the current version of the Liberals.
When you say "no more freelancing foreign policy" I hope that you don't mean we will join every war the US wants us to. I wasn't a huge fan of Chretien but his "A proof is proven when it is proved" or whatever that jumble was was actually a brilliant, diplomatic way of calling BS on the Iraq war crime. And didn't LBJ have Pearson up against the wall by his collar when Lester passed on our joining the Vietnam war?
LBJ clearly had poor self-control, but he wasn't angry that Pearson didn't join the Vietnam war. He was angry that Pearson made a speech in Philidelphia condemning was LBJ was doing in Vietnam.
By way of comparison, I would NOT recommend to Justin Trudeau that he fly down to Philly in March and denounce Donald Trump's foreign policy.
Americans deserve all the credit....for ending 248 years of self government. There are no checks and balances on Trump who now owns the government and the arbiters of the law. There is nothing short of a revolution that Americans can do about it. It's over. Feel free to say I'm off my meds, having a stroke or have become irrational......as long as you promise to revisit this in 24 months. I really hope I'm wrong. I'm not wrong.
China’s incursions into the South China Sea and their African natural resource acquisitions could lead to conflicts . India is quite hostile to Canada right now for supporting certain groups and I’m sure there are more in the US. But in the end it comes down to resources.
Canada is irrelevant as a military player anywhere. We do not currently possess a functioning military. Trump will take whatever of our resources he wants and leave us with the bill. I think India is far enough away to be ignored. Again, Trump will not invest a cent to help Taiwan. Autocrats look after autocrats, and the US is going back into its full protectionist shell.
Well, one thing I can guarantee - supply management is dead. Quebec can squawk all they want no one is paying for extra tariffs and dairy to keep that system in place.
The politicians don’t have a choice. It is a thorn in all negotiations, not just the United States. Imagine telling the rest of Canadians that they have to economically suffer to keep some eastern Ontario and Quebec farmers happy. Not going to happen.
B...b..but... he *didn't* mock the reporter's disability...? There's video of him doing that gesticulation when criticizing many other people, which note- was *not* the hooked arm, but a flailing arm flap while saying "duhhhh". The reporter does not have voice problems. It was not a specific caricature of that reporter because he probably didn't remember him, he meets a million people a year.
Trump did *not* :
- say he wanted to execute Liz Cheney
- hold a 1939 Nazi rally re-enactment
- call Nazis "fine people"
- say there would be a "bloodbath" if he lost
- say he was going to become a dictator on day one
- say he was going to eliminate elections
- tell people to inject bleach or drink bleach
Watching people I highly, highly respect repeat these hoaxes is what scares me
That one is ambiguous, I won't press it, but the others are not and there are many. The Liz Cheney Execution one was particularly egregious: he's criticizing a Cheney for being a warmonger, and it gets spun and twisted into
him threatening violence...
I think you're being too hard on 70 million people who had a *binary* choice to make
Adam Poot, I agree, everything with Trump is taken out of a larger conversation, the weave as he puts it, and twisted by the MSM. It’s beyond ridiculous
On a lighter note: I can no longer watch a Freeland speech without Jen's impression coming to mind. It's like every Freeland speech is Christia Freeland doing an impression of Jen Gerson doing an impression of Christia Freeland.
I was listening to a Freeland interview on CBC this AM. She is a master at pretending to answer questions while avoiding anything meaningful or relevant. If I were Jen I’m not sure I would take Freeland’s imitation of her as a compliment.
The sad thing is despite some of the retail-politics gaps, I used to largely like Freeland: smart, competent, and hard-working: we need more cabinet members like that.
But much like Trudeau, at this point she just seems burned out and out of answers. While Trudeau's stress seems to be coming out in a sort of deranged manic energy, with Freeland we get more of the "kindergarden teacher" persona Jen was mocking. That "everything is going to be fine" speech was particularly bad.
A lot of the Americans who voted to re-elect Trump have simply made a terrible mistake. They’ve been unhappy with the economic situation after COVID and associated a return of Trump with a return of the pre-COVID economy. Another common rationalization was that Trump wasn’t that bad for his first few years - the sky didn’t fall, he largely failed in his efforts to fulfill his darker urges, and hey - they got tax cuts and judges. Wrong and wrong. Trump, like most other presidents, has little or no effect on the economy on such a short period. He’s probably going to reignite inflation. Trump’s first few years were shaped by the presence of establishment Republicans who restrained him. The last year of his presidency had taken a much darker turn. All of this is to say that Americans are soon going to have their illusions about Donald Trump dispelled good and hard, and i suspect most will be very unhappy.
I think Matt and Jen spent too much time dwelling on parochial considerations of what Trump will do to Canada. I think Canada’s not actually that important to Trump, and we’re mostly going to get buffeted by the wake of bigger international issues. Trump’s about to unwittingly collaborate with revisionist powers like China in undermining the rules-based international order that’s been a cornerstone of American security and prosperity since 1945. We’re going to be privileged by our geographic location and heavily American-focused trade and economy. The rest of the world isn’t going to be so lucky - how long until Japan, Korea, and Taiwan become nuclear powers? Another problem could be a US fiscal crisis brought about by Trump’s planned excessive spending and an economic crisis resulting from his trad policies. In that case, our economic interdependence with America is going to hurt a lot.
I think the US will; at some point, demand unrestricted unregulated access to our resources, and the economic penalty will be such that the wish will be granted.
And I won't be surprised if a pipeline out of Lake Michigan to the US southwest is started in the next 2 years to "open that Canadian tap".
They won't care. It probably won't cause a problem for 5 years and Trump will be long dead.....and dictatorships don't care about voters. Just ask Putin.
And they're going to tariff the crap put of us. Perhaps moreso while Trudeau is in power, but he's going to do whatever he wants, and we're going to like it.
It's natural to focus on Trump, because the election is the latest news, and big news at that. Nevertheless, there's a lot to be learned from where Americans *aren't* divided. And a lot of the answers are concerning. I'll focus on trade.
Trump is the most protectionist president in modern history. But Biden is the second most protectionist, and Harris took the same line. The reason Trudeau and Poilievre support 100% tariffs on Chinese electric cars, and further tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum isn't that they just stopped being pro trade; it's because Biden took those positions and they had to sing along. Biden's buy American policies posed a big threat to Canada, as did his industrial policy. The reason Trudeau offered those absurd battery plant subsidies is that he had to outbid Biden's IRA.
Trump's trade policy isn't going to reverse Biden's; it's going to accelerate it. Americans are becoming protectionist on both sides of the aisle. And embracing industrial policy. The CHIPS Act was bipartisan. Canada's trade problems aren't all about Trump; it would be easier if they were.
And it's going to get tougher, as Canada falls farther and farther behind the U.S. in income. We used to escape notice, because unlike Mexico, we didn't have a vast cost advantage over the U.S. (it was similar pay scales, but the employees paid for health care in their taxes instead of the employer having to pay). Now that's changing, and outsourcing to low-cost Canada won't go over well with Democrats or Republicans. This is a bigger problem than Trump, and it isn't going away.
Maybe, but there's not really much you can do about it, until oil prices goes back up. If oil prices goes back up, wages will equalised pretty quickly.
I did as soon as I could. And I wasn’t the only one in my 70s in the immigration court either. The sense of freedom was overwhelming! And the welcome from my fellow Americans was better than anything I ever had in my life😎😎😎
I have only listened as far as the first "like and subscribe", so I will limit my comments to that point.
First of all, and most importantly, glad Jen made it back safely from Israel. I am looking forward to reading the piece that comes out from that visit, because I think it will challenge some of my views.
To the Trump era comments - I think the choice of 2008 was interesting. And while I do agree that with a two-term president (even if the terms are split), you can call this the Trump era. But in 2008, it seemed like Obama was going to be President without opposition for 8 years. By 2010, however, Republicans had taken back the House on the backs of the Tea Party movement, and what seemed like a blanket mandate in 2008 became a split mandate for the last 6 years of Obama's presidency. I am not predicting anything, but we could see a Democrat House in 2026 (that gets sworn in January 2027), and by then, you do have a lame duck President. It is certainly possible.
The most essential line of the podcast so far - is where Jen advised to "write down today where your line is" in terms of morality. I sincerely hope that people do this, because it is such good advice. If you look at it every couple of months, and see yourself close to crossing one of those lines, that is an indication that you are putting party before country. That's where it gets so dangerous.
The one part I was not in agreement on, or that I wanted to give an alternative explanation for, was Jen's comments about woke left. And I know that she clarified that she is talking more about the institional left being captured by woke politics. And while there is something to that, I think there is something deeper going on. A reaction to a politician as woke, is actually not about that politician, or very little about the politician. It is a reaction to the people in someone's social circle. So, in this case, a person is upset that family members, close friends, co-workers, etc. are "woke" - that a person is mad because they hear all those people talking about reconciliation, gender equality, trans rights, and so on. Because they don't want to escalate conversations with those people, they ascribe this to politicians or political movements - they are pushing a "woke" agenda. Because we have little ability or desire to have a difficult conversation with our friends, family, co-workers - "Why do you feel that way?" "Have you considered...?" or "Here is how I see the same thing" we take our anger and use it to fuel a narrative about politicians. And just so I am clear, it happens on the left as well - where a person will have family, friends, co-workers say something that makes them angry, so they take their anger and put it against Poilievre, Smith, etc.
I don't think there will be any Trump policies that will be anything but disastrous for the average American and the world.
I agree that we should have an election today to attempt to save relations with the US, even though it won't make a stick of difference.
I will not be even a little surprised if religious violence ramps up in the US in the coming months; Mosques and Temples being the chief target.
We live in a new world today. What is looks like has yet to come into focus. But I suspect the history of Germany in 1933 that we just repeated is likely to be followed by the history of the 1920's being repeated. And if the economists are right about Trump's plans, 2029 and 1929 may look a lot alike.
Haven’t listened yet. It downloaded and I looked at it in the queue, looked back at my 4 year old in the car seat behind me, and thought, “Naw, there is no way this is child safe this week”
I participate in a Friday current event discussion group based in Palm Springs, I attend on zoom and then in person at the beginning of the year. There are about 12 Dems, 3 Repub and 3 Canadians. The Repubs and one Canadian were very upset, to the point one of them literally crying and two holding back tears (including the Canadian). They were upset along the line of Matt's reasoning, if morals are your deciding factor for voting on a leader, than for many reasons Trump is probably not your candidate. BUT, the facilitator of the group, a very strong Dem, played devils advocate......to a voter who just wants to keep their job, put food on the table for their family, and not have inflation whittle away their standard of living they will and did put Trumps apparent lack of morals aside and vote for the person they believe lines up with their priorities...and on election day that was Trump.
Also of note, the exit polls showed the average Repub voter makes less than the average Dem voter....this statistic was greeted with howls of protest from the Dem's in the group. Also as a Dem noted, at events Kamala was surrounded by celebrities and elite's.....Trump surrounded by working stiffs. Lastly even some of the Dem's of the group admitted that Dems look down their noses at Repub's and the Repub supporters.
Matt's point about morals brought to mind an interesting observation. I have a lot of openly outspoken Democrat/Liberal FB friends who constantly comment on the moral high ground they believe they inhabit. And yet, the memes they post openly mock Trump/Conservative supporters: who, they figure, look like downtrodden hillbillies, aren't as well-educated, etc. So while I believe Matt and respect his take, I don't feel that the average Dem/Liberal supporter is morally above anyone. In fact, I feel that they are more intolerant, judgmental and racist than those they accuse of being such. Again, my comment is not directed toward Matt because Matt doesn't make a point of insulting those who disagree with him politically. Matt's comment merely reminded me of what I've been seeing on social media of late.
Matt is right that everyone has a line. His line is someone being an odious person, mocking a reporter with a disability. I agree that’s a reasonable line to have. Trumps’s behaviour was disgusting.
My line is: men, particularly male sex offenders, being placed in women’s prisons. I would hold my nose and reluctantly accept the odious if the exchange is to stop an outright evil.
That Matt will accept the ongoing physical cruelty done to incarcerated women in exchange for a protest against an emotional cruelty to a member of the press, however, speaks volumes to me.
Jen with the HL Mencken-worthy quote of the year: "They're not running against Donald Trump, they are Kamala Harris". Awesome.
And forget Wayne Gretzky; the under-looked wildcard that could save our asses is the relationship between Jamil Jivani and JD Vance.
Now let me take issue with Matt's de-facto accusation that people are selling out by supporting someone who would mock a disabled individual. With all due respect this analysis came across as simplistic for a few reasons.
First there seems to be a bit of a failure of imagination here. Put yourself in the shoes of average Joe American. Maybe he works in a factory or a trade or some other blue collar occupation. He's just going about his business unaware that some women now have penises and he sees two candidates for President. One is a crass, uncouth, thin-skinned, narcissistic bully who, among other failings, *mocks a disabled person who Joe doesn't know*. The other embodies/represents the smug, condescending, self-righteous, HR lady who *refers to Joe himself as a bigot/racist/misogynist* for not accepting that some women have penises (and the other accompanying woke drivel). Pretty easy for me to see why Joe is going to have more disdain for the embodiment of the HR lady coming for him with false accusations than the narcissistic bully picking on someone he doesn't know - basic human nature in operation.
Second, he suggests that having sold one's soul on the basis of overlooking a serious personality flaw in order to get one's policy preference(s), that person will then be forever compromised, justifying ensuing bad behaviour on the basis of other ensuing good policies. This is hypothetical and is ultimately nothing more than an accusation that "partisan's gonna' partisan". Huge numbers of people identify themselves as either Democrat or Republican. The problem starts THERE - once you have made *that* mistake you are likely to have your ensuing judgment forever compromised. If Matt is saying that Republicans did/are-going-to overlook all sorts of BS from a Republican President you'll get no argument from me. Of course the same can obviously be said about Democrats.
But unaffiliated non-partisans of the type Matt seemed to be speaking of were presumably deciding based on the information available at this moment in time that they thought a Trump presidency would be superior to a Harris presidency by a margin that made up for Trump's grotesque personality flaws. I don't think it leads to the conclusion that all those non-partisans are willing to overlook any and all future moral mis-steps by Trump. Some will. But to write off everybody in that way is presumptuous in my view. And but for single-issue voters, deciding who to vote for invariably comes down to making trade-offs as the available information changes - I didn't get the seeming disdain for voters who engage in trade-offs. Nothing wrong with being a single issue voter but also nothing wrong with not being a single-issue voter.
I have no issue with anyone voting against Trump based solely on his crassness, his conduct leading to the January 6 madness or a myriad of other reasons. But I don't think it's fair to write off everyone who voted for him as a blind partisan who doesn't give a hoot about his obvious personality defects.
Gordo, with respect, you aren't taking issue with what I said. You're just repeating it. I've told everyone that I accept that people looked at Trump, looked at the alternatives, and chose him. I don't harbour any doubts about what happened. I don't need it explained with a hypothetical Joe American in a factory or the trades. I just think they chose stupidly. You aren't actually responding to the point I made. You're just repeating it.
I also never wrote them off as blind partisans. Trump clearly has cross-partisan appeal. The issue here isn't partisanship. It's a judgment of personal decency and all of us setting our own marker on what level of (mis)conduct we can live with.
I also never said people would overlook any/all infractions. I'm sure everyone would have a red line. But it's clear that for 75 million Americans, the totality of Mr. Trump's misconduct so far does not yet exceed the limits of that red line, and that's ... well, I'll channel Jen. That's a choice they can make. I made a different one.
In any case, thanks for the respectful reply.
Hey Matt
I obviously took away a different point than the one you intended to make. Thanks for clarifying.
Cheers
My pleasure. It's good to have you here.
Very well said. Think of all the grotesqueries our current leader has shown -- groping a reporter, blackface, ethics violations, JWR and Jane, repeatedly calling Canadians racists, misogynists and maybe most famously "Thank you for your donation". Oops - I just proved Matt's point -- Liberals are willing to overlook any moral missteps.
It is easy to find Liberals who criticize Trudeau over his scandals- much easier than it is to find Republicans who acknowledge Trump's worst behaviours. It's just not easy to find Liberal *MPs* who criticize Trudeau (due to the kind of discipline in virtually every major Canadian party).
To be fair, while Trudeau is a narcissist, a hypocrite, self-righteous, and in some ways an idiot, I don't think he's cruel.
Wrong, check out the intervention incident between a fan, and Trudeau talking to Paul Wells. Check out how he dealt with Rebould, Philpott and other women in parliament.
You make some good points Gordo. Thanks. I also chuckled at Jen’s comment that the Liberals will be Kamala Harris in the next election. I’m not sure they get that at this point.
I also share your thoughts about dismissing Trump solely because of his crassness. Moral considerations are part of my political decision making for sure but only part (so I guess I’m one of those who is ok with overlooking A and to get B). My main decision point in the next election will be getting the Liberals out of power. Their moral failings are a part of that but mostly it’s over what they’ve done to our country. That’s not to say I think any other governing party will necessarily uphold a higher moral standard (which I will note in subsequent elections).
I can't know for sure that I would have voted for Trump if I was American... but anecdotally, I know many American women who held their nose while they chose him bc he said he'll stop so-called gender affirming surgeries in minors, and stop allowing men to self-identify into women's prisons.
Kamala thought she could just stop talking about trans and the issue would go away. she should have addressed her actual plans so people could have compared apples to apples. she didn't/couldn't bc even one slightly critical word is enough to be labelled a transphobe.
I am not a Trump supporter but come on guys, the sun came up on Wednesday. Yes things will change and we may not like all the changes in the US but trying to say that conscripts will be marching in the streets in a few yeaars time is a bit much. We have let our obligations to the world devolve into sound bites and virtue signalling. We were more interested in putting gender, lgbtqetc. and racial language in the Trade Agreement that we lost out on our arguing points. The LPC government has been way too interested in shovelling money to all sorts of groups instead of saying 'you know folks, you have to work for a living. We can't provide everything for you'. Instead too many groups stand with hands out cryuing poor me and the money flows (don't get me started on LPC folkls lining their pockets with our tax dollars).
We voted for Trudeau and his box of skittles ministers and we are now looking at paying a huge financial price for the debt we have let alone the debt we will incurr to fix all the issues.
Oh, question: who are these boomer women who support Trudeau - I'll wait while you round a few up ... The women that I know in the 60 - 80 age range detest Justin - OK, except for my 92 year old mother-in-law. Seriously, where are these boomer women???
Your point about policing and anti-Jewish protests is spot on but don't stop there Matt and Jen. Only ONE person ahs been found guilty of arson in the burning of ONE of the 500 plus churches that wre burned protesting residential schools. I am not aware of anyone who has been found guilty of blocking rail lines, highways, destroying construction equipment on pipelines, shooting synagogues or Jewish schools and similar actions. If you are seeing a pattern of 'left wing protest good, right wing protest bad' yo9u are seeing the light. Our country is being divided along colour/sexual orientation/religious/ethnic/gender/immigrant/foreign student and any other line you care to mention and there is not ONE politicialn or police service that is willing to take the bull by the horns and start enforcing the rules as defined by Canada. We seem to want to placate every group of folks who feel they are victims or have been told that they are victims.
It is not just the police who are not standing up for the silent majority - it is ourpoliticians and the voting public who are not saying enough. Jobs, security of self and border, a decent job, a roof over our heads and a live and let live attitude is what Canada is about but we have lost sight of that and each day more and more of it slips away.
Anyway, rant over. Remember that Monday is a day of Remembrance for those who fought, suffered and died to protect the freedoms that we have enjoyed. Please attend a service on Monday, donate to the poppy campaigns, Thank a vetreran or current member of the services, and wear a poppy proudly. If you cannot attend a service then at least stand at attention with your head down, eyes closed and say a prayer that we never have to send our youth to war again and do it at 1100 hrs on Monday.
The spinelessness of today's Canada will ensure that the war will come to us. In reality, one set of aggressive invaders is already here. Cossetted and protected by various resolutions. Reminder: you voted in the politicians who allowed this.
I don’t think Matt was suggesting that all Boomer women support Trudeau. He’s talking statistically. The polls I’ve seen show that the cohort that still shows the highest relative support for Trudeau is the Boomers, and women generally support Trudeau (and the NDP) more than men. I’m an Albertan male and consider myself a conservative, but I know lots of women that fit that description. Some of them are even friends. I imagine that Matt, living in central Toronto, is swamped by boomer women that still hang on to the Trudeau myth.
I understand your point Ken and was not suggesting that the stats are wrong just that I have not met a boomer female JT supporter despite knowing many in the age bracket. Point of fact, my better half was a PET supporter (surprising for an Edmontonian but there ya go) and she detests JT.
You’ve nailed it! Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking. And I am sick of hearing ‘boomer women.’ I live in Alberta, am a woman, am a boomer. Come say that to my face, if you dare.
Trying blocking streets in Ottawa for a few weeks :)
"Only ONE person has been found guilty of arson in the burning of ONE of the 500 plus churches that were burned protesting residential schools."
Sorry, there have not been 500+ church arsons protesting residential schools. Yes, there have been 500+ suspected arsons of ALL places of worship (not just churches, but synagogues, temples & mosques) since 2010! Just because arson is suspected doesn't make it fact.
Kaycee, you are correct but my point was that there has been very few successful investigations leading to charges or successful prosecutions. I used 'churches' as a catch all for places of worship. Compared to 'right wing' protests like the truck convoy, 'left wing' protests are largely ignored and, indeed, encouraged.
Statistically, the only ridings the Liberals have any chance of winning are those consisting of rich Boomers. That is not to say everyone of them supports him, but they are his last refuge.
I hear ya Mr Hilton but even rich boomers have to know what tax increases they are looking at and have been paying for a few years now. I thought boomers were an educated generation ...
Let me take a stab at an American perspective.
- Post WW2 peace and prosperity has been created protected and paid for by the American State and the American people.
- in the 90 year post year period America has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate share (per capita) in blood and treasure to guarantee this peace and prosperity for the West.
- The world has treated America in this time like a rich friend or acquaintance, and most countries at this point are and have been behaving in an entitled and disrespectful way. No one has offered to pick up the dinner tab in a long time… the best they can hope for is that someone offers to split the bill. And this under the backdrop that we’re not hard up for it.
- While America has been looking out for everyone else, they haven’t been looking after their own. People will tolerant being taken advantage of as long as their own prosperity continues to stay intact/grow. But for much of the American population- this is no longer true. Union factory jobs have been turned into Walmart cashier positions. Urban centers look like parts of the world American soldiers are sent to fight in.
We (Canadian’s) have taken advantage of our neighbour for some time, and we’ve been quite ungrateful and condescending while we’ve done it. If we show America the respect it deserves, honor our commitments, act in the spirit of good faith, fairness and shared commitment. We will join it in a renewed period of shared prosperity. However, if we instead condescend, whine or act surprised when they ask us to carry our weight and pick up our end of the tab… well Canada. Get ready, it’s a cold hard world out there when you don’t have friends at your side.
The problem isn't that the above is wrong... It's that it's incomplete because it leaves out what the Americans got in return for enforcing the western world order... they got to dictate foreign policy for the west.
I love your post ! Well said !!!! And hard for non Americans to face the truth about our collective behavior towards our great protectors
Wow that episode was bleak even by The Line standards. Let me try to paint a slightly more optimistic picture:
Trump takes office Jan 20 and the next Canadian election is planned for October. I don't think the Canada relationship is near the top of Trump's priorities so it's possible the Liberals can tread water for that time. Presumably at that point the Conservatives take over and Poilievre's popularity among those in Trump's orbit and his similar populist style could be an asset in forming a good relationship with Trump. Now I think you're bang on we can no longer get by just on friendship and need to sell the US on our value as a partner both economically and militarily. That will mean giving up some autonomy : trade concessions, meeting NATO target, no more freelancing foreign policy, and we'll have to follow the US on things like tariffs and border controls. I don't love that loss of autonomy on principle, but in practice what parts of "Canadian independence" are we likely to be giving up? Supply management? Our incomprehensible policy on Israel? The 20-year timeframe to replace fighter-jets? Our broken immigration policies? And hopefully the US's new isolationist stance means we won't be dragged into a war.
I'm nervous at the worst-case possibilities as well, but I can imagine various outcomes like above that work out okay for Canada. Somewhat ironically, Trump's election makes me more likely to vote for Poilievre - no guarantee he handles the situation well, but I have more faith than the current version of the Liberals.
When you say "no more freelancing foreign policy" I hope that you don't mean we will join every war the US wants us to. I wasn't a huge fan of Chretien but his "A proof is proven when it is proved" or whatever that jumble was was actually a brilliant, diplomatic way of calling BS on the Iraq war crime. And didn't LBJ have Pearson up against the wall by his collar when Lester passed on our joining the Vietnam war?
LBJ clearly had poor self-control, but he wasn't angry that Pearson didn't join the Vietnam war. He was angry that Pearson made a speech in Philidelphia condemning was LBJ was doing in Vietnam.
By way of comparison, I would NOT recommend to Justin Trudeau that he fly down to Philly in March and denounce Donald Trump's foreign policy.
Trump's focus will be on consolidating GOP power to ensure the the next round of "elections" don't matter.
Russia and the US are now allies. Who would we get dragged into a war with?
Come on now. You have been watching too much CNN. You also give Americans too little credit.
Americans deserve all the credit....for ending 248 years of self government. There are no checks and balances on Trump who now owns the government and the arbiters of the law. There is nothing short of a revolution that Americans can do about it. It's over. Feel free to say I'm off my meds, having a stroke or have become irrational......as long as you promise to revisit this in 24 months. I really hope I'm wrong. I'm not wrong.
Two eastern countries with aggressive trade policies and large populations come to mind.
I still can't see a purpose. Trump will drop Taiwan like a hat. Then, what would they have to fight about?
China’s incursions into the South China Sea and their African natural resource acquisitions could lead to conflicts . India is quite hostile to Canada right now for supporting certain groups and I’m sure there are more in the US. But in the end it comes down to resources.
Canada is irrelevant as a military player anywhere. We do not currently possess a functioning military. Trump will take whatever of our resources he wants and leave us with the bill. I think India is far enough away to be ignored. Again, Trump will not invest a cent to help Taiwan. Autocrats look after autocrats, and the US is going back into its full protectionist shell.
Well, one thing I can guarantee - supply management is dead. Quebec can squawk all they want no one is paying for extra tariffs and dairy to keep that system in place.
That's what I'm hoping for. No one domestically seems to want to get it done. Maybe Trump will be able to.
The politicians don’t have a choice. It is a thorn in all negotiations, not just the United States. Imagine telling the rest of Canadians that they have to economically suffer to keep some eastern Ontario and Quebec farmers happy. Not going to happen.
Nailed it. This Govt is not equipped to handle what's coming.
B...b..but... he *didn't* mock the reporter's disability...? There's video of him doing that gesticulation when criticizing many other people, which note- was *not* the hooked arm, but a flailing arm flap while saying "duhhhh". The reporter does not have voice problems. It was not a specific caricature of that reporter because he probably didn't remember him, he meets a million people a year.
Trump did *not* :
- say he wanted to execute Liz Cheney
- hold a 1939 Nazi rally re-enactment
- call Nazis "fine people"
- say there would be a "bloodbath" if he lost
- say he was going to become a dictator on day one
- say he was going to eliminate elections
- tell people to inject bleach or drink bleach
Watching people I highly, highly respect repeat these hoaxes is what scares me
I remember the excuses at the time. I watched the videos. Listened to the arguments. And rejected them. You can all draw your own conclusions.
That one is ambiguous, I won't press it, but the others are not and there are many. The Liz Cheney Execution one was particularly egregious: he's criticizing a Cheney for being a warmonger, and it gets spun and twisted into
him threatening violence...
I think you're being too hard on 70 million people who had a *binary* choice to make
Adam Poot, I agree, everything with Trump is taken out of a larger conversation, the weave as he puts it, and twisted by the MSM. It’s beyond ridiculous
Freak, if I could up over this comment 20 times I would
On a lighter note: I can no longer watch a Freeland speech without Jen's impression coming to mind. It's like every Freeland speech is Christia Freeland doing an impression of Jen Gerson doing an impression of Christia Freeland.
I was listening to a Freeland interview on CBC this AM. She is a master at pretending to answer questions while avoiding anything meaningful or relevant. If I were Jen I’m not sure I would take Freeland’s imitation of her as a compliment.
The sad thing is despite some of the retail-politics gaps, I used to largely like Freeland: smart, competent, and hard-working: we need more cabinet members like that.
But much like Trudeau, at this point she just seems burned out and out of answers. While Trudeau's stress seems to be coming out in a sort of deranged manic energy, with Freeland we get more of the "kindergarden teacher" persona Jen was mocking. That "everything is going to be fine" speech was particularly bad.
A lot of the Americans who voted to re-elect Trump have simply made a terrible mistake. They’ve been unhappy with the economic situation after COVID and associated a return of Trump with a return of the pre-COVID economy. Another common rationalization was that Trump wasn’t that bad for his first few years - the sky didn’t fall, he largely failed in his efforts to fulfill his darker urges, and hey - they got tax cuts and judges. Wrong and wrong. Trump, like most other presidents, has little or no effect on the economy on such a short period. He’s probably going to reignite inflation. Trump’s first few years were shaped by the presence of establishment Republicans who restrained him. The last year of his presidency had taken a much darker turn. All of this is to say that Americans are soon going to have their illusions about Donald Trump dispelled good and hard, and i suspect most will be very unhappy.
I think Matt and Jen spent too much time dwelling on parochial considerations of what Trump will do to Canada. I think Canada’s not actually that important to Trump, and we’re mostly going to get buffeted by the wake of bigger international issues. Trump’s about to unwittingly collaborate with revisionist powers like China in undermining the rules-based international order that’s been a cornerstone of American security and prosperity since 1945. We’re going to be privileged by our geographic location and heavily American-focused trade and economy. The rest of the world isn’t going to be so lucky - how long until Japan, Korea, and Taiwan become nuclear powers? Another problem could be a US fiscal crisis brought about by Trump’s planned excessive spending and an economic crisis resulting from his trad policies. In that case, our economic interdependence with America is going to hurt a lot.
I think the US will; at some point, demand unrestricted unregulated access to our resources, and the economic penalty will be such that the wish will be granted.
And I won't be surprised if a pipeline out of Lake Michigan to the US southwest is started in the next 2 years to "open that Canadian tap".
If it means that they'll take our wood without tariff, we'd be thrilled, because we've been pushing for it for decades.
As for the water, that's a good way to piss off the swing states.
They won't care. It probably won't cause a problem for 5 years and Trump will be long dead.....and dictatorships don't care about voters. Just ask Putin.
And they're going to tariff the crap put of us. Perhaps moreso while Trudeau is in power, but he's going to do whatever he wants, and we're going to like it.
It's natural to focus on Trump, because the election is the latest news, and big news at that. Nevertheless, there's a lot to be learned from where Americans *aren't* divided. And a lot of the answers are concerning. I'll focus on trade.
Trump is the most protectionist president in modern history. But Biden is the second most protectionist, and Harris took the same line. The reason Trudeau and Poilievre support 100% tariffs on Chinese electric cars, and further tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum isn't that they just stopped being pro trade; it's because Biden took those positions and they had to sing along. Biden's buy American policies posed a big threat to Canada, as did his industrial policy. The reason Trudeau offered those absurd battery plant subsidies is that he had to outbid Biden's IRA.
Trump's trade policy isn't going to reverse Biden's; it's going to accelerate it. Americans are becoming protectionist on both sides of the aisle. And embracing industrial policy. The CHIPS Act was bipartisan. Canada's trade problems aren't all about Trump; it would be easier if they were.
And it's going to get tougher, as Canada falls farther and farther behind the U.S. in income. We used to escape notice, because unlike Mexico, we didn't have a vast cost advantage over the U.S. (it was similar pay scales, but the employees paid for health care in their taxes instead of the employer having to pay). Now that's changing, and outsourcing to low-cost Canada won't go over well with Democrats or Republicans. This is a bigger problem than Trump, and it isn't going away.
Maybe, but there's not really much you can do about it, until oil prices goes back up. If oil prices goes back up, wages will equalised pretty quickly.
Have you not noticed that Trudeau is desperately trying to kill the oil industry?
Trying. And the oil industry knows he's getting turfed in a year.
Matt, Jen, re. your acquiring US citizenship as a strategic choice/backup, go for it. Do it.
I did as soon as I could. And I wasn’t the only one in my 70s in the immigration court either. The sense of freedom was overwhelming! And the welcome from my fellow Americans was better than anything I ever had in my life😎😎😎
Congratulations ! I see it as a soundly practical, good - neighbourly action. For me, it is too late.
🙏🙏🙏
I have only listened as far as the first "like and subscribe", so I will limit my comments to that point.
First of all, and most importantly, glad Jen made it back safely from Israel. I am looking forward to reading the piece that comes out from that visit, because I think it will challenge some of my views.
To the Trump era comments - I think the choice of 2008 was interesting. And while I do agree that with a two-term president (even if the terms are split), you can call this the Trump era. But in 2008, it seemed like Obama was going to be President without opposition for 8 years. By 2010, however, Republicans had taken back the House on the backs of the Tea Party movement, and what seemed like a blanket mandate in 2008 became a split mandate for the last 6 years of Obama's presidency. I am not predicting anything, but we could see a Democrat House in 2026 (that gets sworn in January 2027), and by then, you do have a lame duck President. It is certainly possible.
The most essential line of the podcast so far - is where Jen advised to "write down today where your line is" in terms of morality. I sincerely hope that people do this, because it is such good advice. If you look at it every couple of months, and see yourself close to crossing one of those lines, that is an indication that you are putting party before country. That's where it gets so dangerous.
The one part I was not in agreement on, or that I wanted to give an alternative explanation for, was Jen's comments about woke left. And I know that she clarified that she is talking more about the institional left being captured by woke politics. And while there is something to that, I think there is something deeper going on. A reaction to a politician as woke, is actually not about that politician, or very little about the politician. It is a reaction to the people in someone's social circle. So, in this case, a person is upset that family members, close friends, co-workers, etc. are "woke" - that a person is mad because they hear all those people talking about reconciliation, gender equality, trans rights, and so on. Because they don't want to escalate conversations with those people, they ascribe this to politicians or political movements - they are pushing a "woke" agenda. Because we have little ability or desire to have a difficult conversation with our friends, family, co-workers - "Why do you feel that way?" "Have you considered...?" or "Here is how I see the same thing" we take our anger and use it to fuel a narrative about politicians. And just so I am clear, it happens on the left as well - where a person will have family, friends, co-workers say something that makes them angry, so they take their anger and put it against Poilievre, Smith, etc.
I don't think there will be any Trump policies that will be anything but disastrous for the average American and the world.
I agree that we should have an election today to attempt to save relations with the US, even though it won't make a stick of difference.
I will not be even a little surprised if religious violence ramps up in the US in the coming months; Mosques and Temples being the chief target.
We live in a new world today. What is looks like has yet to come into focus. But I suspect the history of Germany in 1933 that we just repeated is likely to be followed by the history of the 1920's being repeated. And if the economists are right about Trump's plans, 2029 and 1929 may look a lot alike.
Haven’t listened yet. It downloaded and I looked at it in the queue, looked back at my 4 year old in the car seat behind me, and thought, “Naw, there is no way this is child safe this week”
small moments like these - where we prioritize our children over personal desires- is why I still have hope for our future
I participate in a Friday current event discussion group based in Palm Springs, I attend on zoom and then in person at the beginning of the year. There are about 12 Dems, 3 Repub and 3 Canadians. The Repubs and one Canadian were very upset, to the point one of them literally crying and two holding back tears (including the Canadian). They were upset along the line of Matt's reasoning, if morals are your deciding factor for voting on a leader, than for many reasons Trump is probably not your candidate. BUT, the facilitator of the group, a very strong Dem, played devils advocate......to a voter who just wants to keep their job, put food on the table for their family, and not have inflation whittle away their standard of living they will and did put Trumps apparent lack of morals aside and vote for the person they believe lines up with their priorities...and on election day that was Trump.
Also of note, the exit polls showed the average Repub voter makes less than the average Dem voter....this statistic was greeted with howls of protest from the Dem's in the group. Also as a Dem noted, at events Kamala was surrounded by celebrities and elite's.....Trump surrounded by working stiffs. Lastly even some of the Dem's of the group admitted that Dems look down their noses at Repub's and the Repub supporters.
Matt's point about morals brought to mind an interesting observation. I have a lot of openly outspoken Democrat/Liberal FB friends who constantly comment on the moral high ground they believe they inhabit. And yet, the memes they post openly mock Trump/Conservative supporters: who, they figure, look like downtrodden hillbillies, aren't as well-educated, etc. So while I believe Matt and respect his take, I don't feel that the average Dem/Liberal supporter is morally above anyone. In fact, I feel that they are more intolerant, judgmental and racist than those they accuse of being such. Again, my comment is not directed toward Matt because Matt doesn't make a point of insulting those who disagree with him politically. Matt's comment merely reminded me of what I've been seeing on social media of late.
Yes, this is something I've observed for a number of years - what I call 'the intolerant left'.
Matt is right that everyone has a line. His line is someone being an odious person, mocking a reporter with a disability. I agree that’s a reasonable line to have. Trumps’s behaviour was disgusting.
My line is: men, particularly male sex offenders, being placed in women’s prisons. I would hold my nose and reluctantly accept the odious if the exchange is to stop an outright evil.
That Matt will accept the ongoing physical cruelty done to incarcerated women in exchange for a protest against an emotional cruelty to a member of the press, however, speaks volumes to me.