I’m sorry, isolationism by the US is not “war” no matter how much the media tries to use that specifically terminology.
And neither is it an excuse for centralizing power, making partisan appointments when they’ve historically been democratic, or running up a war budget when a quarter of the population can’t afford food on the table.
Again, we are not at open war (bullets flying, missiles dropping) for us to not care if centralization of power or when subverting parts of our democracy is happening.
The premise of the post and article is centralization of power as if it’s wartime, and we’re not at active war.
If we’re willing to abandon Democratic principles when war (actual battle) hasn’t even been declared, then I don’t see much hope for what will be left of our current democracy when/if that happens.
Did we forget the whole “join us, voluntarily or not” rhetoric coming from the White House? That language alone was a threat of war. Actual war. Like, with tanks and shit.
Carney is engaging in disaster capitalism, and must be called out for that. But let’s not forget the disaster part.
Well I’m just glad that someone is mentioning disaster capitalism and that really is my main point to the premise of this post about centralization of power.
My “war” in quotations was about the economic war. Trump’s posturing is fucked up, aggressive, and definitely threatening; and he was betting on Canada buying weapons from the US for protection like Denmark is doing.
If you seriously and genuinely read that comment to mean I disagree with your thoughts on centralization of power than you lack the reading comprehension to participate in this conversation.
Go back to middle school English class or drop the disingenuous act and acknowledge that you were mistaken on your assumption about what isolationism is.
It’s also the terminology applied preceding to WW2 when isolationist policies of European countries applied tariffs to imports from competing empires. Which is why the couldn’t recover well from WW1.
So I appreciate the condescending tone, I really do.
But if your only issue with my comment is that “I don’t understand tariffs” and that’s what you decided to be aggressive about when the main premise is Carney’s overreach of power, then that’s not my problem.
My friend, the point is he’s governing as if it’s a military war by centralizing the power of government. If you were looking at a different country and saw the same actions, you would judge their leadership a lot more harshly
On the one hand, the Prime Minister gets to say that he’s non-partisan by appointing a Conservative to the Senate. On the other hand, creating an opening in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord creates a situation where the Liberals can win another seat
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we’ve seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn’t centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn’t go against political norms.
I’m sorry, but when you use ‘historically’ to refer to a policy that was enacted for less than a decade in a country that is over a century and a half old it reduces your credibility for me.
My point is that existential threats override real concern about incremental gains in administrative power by the government. I used Denmark as a hypothetical and parallel example of a country that could centralize given the same condiitons, threats to sovereignty, not anything to do with what theyre actually doing.
If this is how we’re rolling over with the “existential threat” of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That’s literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
I’m sorry, isolationism by the US is not “war” no matter how much the media tries to use that specifically terminology.
And neither is it an excuse for centralizing power, making partisan appointments when they’ve historically been democratic, or running up a war budget when a quarter of the population can’t afford food on the table.
Venezuela is being run by Rubio as a Banana Republic, except with oil. The president is talking openly about annexing us. Do the math.
Yes, and Iran invasion, and Cuba blockade, etc…
Again, we are not at open war (bullets flying, missiles dropping) for us to not care if centralization of power or when subverting parts of our democracy is happening.
The premise of the post and article is centralization of power as if it’s wartime, and we’re not at active war.
I agree that it’s only a “war” in the sense like a “price war”, not an actual war. But it’s still open aggression and falls on the same gradient.
If we’re willing to abandon Democratic principles when war (actual battle) hasn’t even been declared, then I don’t see much hope for what will be left of our current democracy when/if that happens.
Did we forget the whole “join us, voluntarily or not” rhetoric coming from the White House? That language alone was a threat of war. Actual war. Like, with tanks and shit.
Carney is engaging in disaster capitalism, and must be called out for that. But let’s not forget the disaster part.
Well I’m just glad that someone is mentioning disaster capitalism and that really is my main point to the premise of this post about centralization of power.
My “war” in quotations was about the economic war. Trump’s posturing is fucked up, aggressive, and definitely threatening; and he was betting on Canada buying weapons from the US for protection like Denmark is doing.
USA is not being isolationist.
They initiated regime change in Venezuela in January and invaded Iran in February.
They’re also actively participating in trade talks.
You need to re-evaluate your opinions on things if you’re operating on such misconceptions.
I’m sorry, why would it be considered a misconception that I don’t want power centralized?
If you seriously and genuinely read that comment to mean I disagree with your thoughts on centralization of power than you lack the reading comprehension to participate in this conversation.
Go back to middle school English class or drop the disingenuous act and acknowledge that you were mistaken on your assumption about what isolationism is.
What do you think tariffs are? They’re literally defined as isolationist and protectionist methods by a government.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/07/trump-isolationism-globalization-china-competition-manufacturing-tariffs-migration/
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/tariffs-and-economic-isolationism-four-principles-for-a-response/
https://www.gfmreview.com/world/economic-isolationism-how-trump-s-trade-policies-undermine-global-stability
https://uslawexplained.com/isolationism
Here’s a wikipedia article if you’d like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
It’s also the terminology applied preceding to WW2 when isolationist policies of European countries applied tariffs to imports from competing empires. Which is why the couldn’t recover well from WW1.
So I appreciate the condescending tone, I really do.
But if your only issue with my comment is that “I don’t understand tariffs” and that’s what you decided to be aggressive about when the main premise is Carney’s overreach of power, then that’s not my problem.
I never mentioned tariffs. Youre not good at conversations.
My issue is youre dishonest and misinformed. I’ll be blocking you now as you contribute negatively to my lemmy experience.
You can reframe the point all you want. Bottom line is trump laid a wide suite of tariffs against Canada to create a win lose dynamic.
Its has direct negative impacts on the canadian economy and it was every bit intentional to do exactly that.
Trump attacked Canada, full stop.
Nice how you manage to conveniently gloss over his direct threats to canadian sovereignty.
And remember I said economic war, never suggested there was military involvement.
My friend, the point is he’s governing as if it’s a military war by centralizing the power of government. If you were looking at a different country and saw the same actions, you would judge their leadership a lot more harshly
Even if they are, so what?
If you were looking at a different country that was actively being bullied, would you argue some crap about centralizing power?
If Denmark started centralizing power in response to trumps threats to the sovereignty of greenland, then what?
You talk like this is a problem that government is responding to external existential threats in the means that are available to them.
Are you arguing the Carney government should relinquish power?
Should they decentralize their capacity to influence things inside the country?
Perhaps you can answer just this.
What is your point?
Um…its not a choice of centralization or decentralization of power. What? Those aren’t the only choices!
Point: The choice is don’t go against the Democratic process and principles.
Like when he made a partisan appointment to roles of governance
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-senate-tom-pitfield-9.7261037
Following that thread, him appointing Martel to open another seat in that riding which Carney is betting goes to a liberal seat
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/politics/2026/07/07/pm-carney-poaches-conservative-mp-in-latest-batch-of-senate-appointments/
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we’ve seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn’t centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn’t go against political norms.
I’m sorry, but when you use ‘historically’ to refer to a policy that was enacted for less than a decade in a country that is over a century and a half old it reduces your credibility for me.
My point is that existential threats override real concern about incremental gains in administrative power by the government. I used Denmark as a hypothetical and parallel example of a country that could centralize given the same condiitons, threats to sovereignty, not anything to do with what theyre actually doing.
If this is how we’re rolling over with the “existential threat” of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That’s literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
Trump waging economic warfare against Canada.
Done the same and worse to Mexico. They’re neither arming up or dismantling parts of their democratic process.
Lol!