61 Replies to “A Shameless Post Mocking Elbows Up Canadians”

  2. “Elbows up.”
    Is it me? As a movement, a slogan, it all seems extraordinarily unsophisticated, dated, primary. Has all of Canada decended into the quaint backwater of the middle 20th century.
    Elbows up is the sort of thing the 1960s TV character Hazel would involve herself in.

    1. You’re far too kind. What it is, is [spit] Prog stupid. Every time I envisioned Marx Carnage standing opposed to DJT w/ his “Elbows up”, the next move was Trump delivering a kick square to Carnage’s tiny nuts. And that’s exactly what has happened. Trump has kicked Canuckistan right square in the crotch and 60-odd years of [spit] Prog rule is the reason.

      WEXIT!!!

      1. I had a different analogy
        Of Carney leaving the White House with his underwear pulled up over his head.

    1. Well, I thonk the messiah for a lot of SDAers was/is Pee-pee. And he’s very busy right now accusing bobblehead of not being tough enough with the Yanks.

  4. The ridiculous propaganda has been endless. Despite every misstep, the talking heads and online Bots continue the never ending loyal support for Dear Leader Daddy.
    Even with yesterday’s TAKE A KNEE capitulation, the fanbois continue:
    -This was Carney’s strategy all along! See, he’s negotiating, showing Trump how tough he is!
    -Carney’s got Trump right where he wants him!
    -Our trade is safe because CUSMA exists and our economy is better than ever!
    These have to be coming straight out of the PMO.
    But to the loyal old boomers, Carney’s is the man. All of this, to them, is just Carney defending Canada and showing how “tough we are”, so said an old boomer at the resort yesterday.
    You Can’t Fix Stupid.

    1. You Can’t Fix Stupid.

      The irony. No, you certainly cannot.

      There are millions of Boomers in this country who didn’t vote for Marx Carnage. However, most [spit] Progs did. Either him or JagDerp or Crazy Lizzie or whomever. Place the blame where it lies & quit castigating those of us of a particular age for something we most certainly did not do. IOW, quit alienating your allies. [spit] Progs are the issue, not Boomers.

      1. With respect, I’m disagreeing.
        Lots of Boomers are NOT progs and they voted for Carnage.
        I’ve got an idiot brother who did.
        But he’s not a prog, just an idiot.

      2. I totally agree with your comment: I have ranted before on this site, I am a Boomer and have never voted for the Lieberals, nor have many others I know.

        I am really tired of the ignorant stereotyping of us greybeards, likewise I also object to the regular assertion that Ontario residents vote for the Libs. My local MP is a long- time Conservative and won again handily at the last election. So clearly there is an abundance of non stereotypical boomers around here.

        1. Of course I’m not talking about you! But I am referring to the vast majority of boomers who voted in the Lieberals and who we see at every protest march these days.

          I’m at the tail end of the Boomers and, like you, have never voted for the Lieberals or Dippers. But we are clearly not the majority.

  5. I’ve noticed a few others are beginning to refer to the putative PM as “Conman Carney”. It’s the perfect epithet for the slimy little wea.. er, European tourist. He has set US/Canada relations back decades – I’m old enough to remember trying to order things and being told “We don’t ship to Canada. Too much hassle.” – with tactics pulled out of the “Crooked Negotiator’s Handbook”.

    Trump complained about dairy – where we’ve repeatedly lost in the WTO – and lumber – where we’ve repeatedly won. A principled negotiator might have taken that as a starting point, and worked towards a compromise. Only a conman decides to levy illegal tariffs as his first salvo, putting the country through pain while he promised to ‘Hang tough’, only to cave once his corporate masters instruct him to do so. The orchestrated “Everyone loves Mark!” and “No one loves PP!” campaign amongst the MSM and the ‘objective’ polling companies are other tools necessary in a confidence game, like the bogus betting parlour in “The Sting”. Suckers are easier to gull in crowds.

    Just a few more weeks, and we might have a chance to hold a “No Confidence” vote, and expunge this sorry conman from our history.

    1. Just a few more weeks, and we might have a chance to hold a “No Confidence” vote, and expunge this sorry conman from our history.

      To what end? Lieberal-Lite PP? SSDD. He climbed up on the same TDS bandwagon as Marx Carnage did.

    2. Sorry Kevin, it’s not that clear cut. If you take a look at canada338.com you will see that as of the first few days of August the Liberals held a clear majority in Parliament. The so-called conservatives of Ontario also held a very clear majority with the master of the Inept, Doug the Slug running the show. That to me says that the status quo is holding. It may change slightly due to Carney’s unmatchable incompetence, but I bet that smirking little schmuck has a few more tricks up his elbow , make that sleeve.

  7. I have no idea what Carney thinks he’s doing (nor do I really want to), but the joke’s on Trump. He’s in the process of implementing one of the biggest tax increases in American history, and I doubt the American people will be better for it. And by forcing Carney to rescind retaliatory tariffs, Trump has just reduced taxes for Canadian citizens and manufacturers.

    In soccer they call that an own goal.

    1. No, in soccer they call what Canada has done as “flopping” … throwing oneself on the floor, writhing in faux pain … hoping for an unearned PK. Instead all you earned was a RED CARD for “simulation”.

      1. I’m more concerned over what these moves will do for the citizens of each country.

        1. Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter.

          I think we’ll be ok here.

        2. “I’m more concerned over what these moves will do for the citizens of each country.”

          No, you’re not….not at all.

          Your sole concern here, as always, is how you can possibly twist the narrative to work in a cheap shot against President Donald Trump.

        3. Your sole concern here, as always, is how you can possibly twist the narrative to work in a cheap shot against President Donald Trump.

          Fred, you’re not half as smart as you think you are. I agree with Trump on a whole host of policies, including border security, deregulation, energy, women’s rights in sports, and clamping down on institutions that practice DEI on the taxpayer’s dime.

          But on tariffs and a few other things, I think he’s misguided and could do enormous damage.

          The difference between you and me is that I judge policies for what they are, not what side is proposing them. This confuses the hell out out of people who insist on judging everything through a partisan lens.

          1. I’m going to suggest what you think you ‘know’ about tariffs is based on classical economics. In a world of constantly deteriorating currencies, protectionist policies hiding under assumed names (‘climate change’, ‘DIE’), and mountains of debt that are not intended to be paid back, the rules of classical economics are dead. I do not fault you personally for this; not one person in a thousand understands what has happened, and that may be an optimistic estimate.

            That classical world was based on the relatively ‘equal’ economies (in terms of GDP per capita) and relatively equal standards of living of the major European countries, and gold as a monetary anchor. In such a world, tariffs are inefficient and costly, and they benefit one group of citizens (e.g. dairy farmers) at the expense of others (dairy consumers). But that was a limited set of circumstances, even then.

            Consider the fledgling US. They were funded almost exclusively by tariffs and excise taxes. But note that the conditions above did not apply – the early US citizens did not enjoy the same standards of living as their European counterparts. Tariffs provided a protective barrier for new American business to begin the process of import substitution, by the process by which a developing economy, er, develops.

            Today, we have widely differing standards of living between countries that are trading with each other, and they are trading fiat currencies instead of gold. In addition, we have added a third layer of government regulation and oversight which varies greatly from country to country. How can one meaningfully compare the costs of building a business and hiring people in say, Vietnam (U$4k GDP/pp) with little to no social safety net and regulations vs doing the same in Toronto (U$60k GDP/pp) with its myriad rules and regulations and taxes and licenses and fees and permits?

            In the days of classical economics, these things didn’t matter. It was too expensive to ship things half way round the world, and the logistics were extremely difficult. But thanks to cheap communications and computer chips and container ships, those barriers have all been dissolved, and now the worker in Saskatoon has to compete with the guy in Saigon. *Inevitably*, their wages will converge (going down a lot more than they go up) unless there’s a barrier – a moat, if you will – to keep that higher level of living afloat. Using that filter, the tariffs are simply a remedy for the firms that *don’t* try to evade Canadian regulations, to have a level field with the companies that *do* export jobs and capital to lower-regulation jurisdictions to increase their profits.

            Trump is particularly mad at his NATO ‘partners’, all of whom, Canada included, have been willing to let the US pay the lion’s share of defense spending, and none of whom have even met the meagre 2% target in recent years. He rightly feels we have been taking a free ride for years, and his tariffs are a recognition of that. The situation today is much different than what Adam Smith contemplated when writing his thoughts on tariffs 250 years ago.

          2. If you want to rewrite the science of economics, have at ‘er. I keenly await your papers that will overturn current theory. But until you receive your Nobel Prize, I’ll stick with the macroeconomics I was taught.

            In regards to NATO, I agree that the Europe and Canada should be paying more, but a trade war isn’t the way to settle the issue.

          3. By my reckoning, Fred is more like 78.97% as smart as he thinks he is. I’ll accept dispute over that second decimal position, but otherwise that’s a definitive reckoning. Mind you, he could raise that appreciably by being a bit more modest.

          4. “… but a trade war isn’t the way to settle the issue.”

            Note to KM: Trump didn’t start the war, rather he opened the negotiations. The war was started with Carney’s ‘Resistance’. Carney drew a red line in the shifting sands of the Canadian economy. Trump didn’t declare war … Carney did. As did P.P.

          5. ” But on tariffs and a few other things, I think he’s misguided and could do enormous damage”

            That’s accurate. Trump’s whining about the dairy tariffs was 100% street-theatre bullshït; the US hasn’t exceeded their canuck dairy imports levels that were negotiated by Trump in his first term so there were no ensuing 200%-400% tariffs on those goods. It’s a big lie and bogus talking point to anyone not bothering to dig for facts.

            And this post is from someone who’d be happy to see the QC dairy lobby humbled and cheers the other 98-98% of what he’s accomplished before some non-thinker accuses me of being anti-Trump. I’m Pro Trump Second, Anti-BS First.

            mhb23re

    2. Too funny…..no tax increase in the U.S. In fact, taxes will be going down as the federal government gets the ax taken to it soon enough.

      1. US import tariffs are taxes paid by American companies and citizens.

        Estimates by economic think tanks like the Tax Foundation figure this will increase government revenue by $250 to $400 billion this year alone, and perhaps double that next year.

        1. What does the Tax Foundation say about the trillions of $$$ of investment that Trump’s tariffs have brought into the US? Product which is now going to be manufactured in the US & no longer subject to tariffs? Is that included anywhere in their calculations? And, down the road when Trump reduces or eliminates income taxes because of tariff revenue, where’s that calculation?

          1. Shuuussssshh you! No quasi-government Agencies care about that dumb supply-side nonsense. The GAO … NEVER … considers it because “accounting” or something. So why should the Tax Foundation?

          2. What does the Tax Foundation say about the trillions of $$$ of investment that Trump’s tariffs have brought into the US?

            They would say don’t count your chickens befre they hatch. It’s easy for a company to make grand announcements to get on the good side of the president. It’s another to deliver. This is especially so if the tariffs induce a seroius recession before the shovels hit the dirt.

          3. It’s easy for a company to make grand announcements to get on the good side of the president.

            You don’t think Trump isn’t watching each one of these purported deals like a hawk? Wake up. At the first sign of waffling, he’ll nail the bastards even harder just ’cause they pissed him off.

            Kinda like this shithole did.

          4. If the US goes into recession or if inflation rises sharply (or both), and if Trump’s tariffs are blamed, the heat will be on Trump, not the companies. He’ll be the one scrambling for answers.

          5. “… don’t count your chickens before they hatch.”

            “… if the US goes into recession or inflation rises sharply (or both) …”

            KM … don’t count your recession or inflation chickens before they hatch.

      3. The One Big Beautiful Bill introduced many tax cuts, but most will bring in only minor amounts of revenue.

        By far the biggest part is the permanent extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But this is an extension, not a cut, so it will not reduce government revenue this year over last.

        In short, Trump’s actual tax cuts are overall minor.

        1. Correction: “only bring in minor amounts of revenue” -> “will reduce revenue by only a minor amount.”

          Don’t drink and post, kids.

        2. Trump just trimmed $12,000.00 from our married filing jointly income. So yeah … in addition to the still-reduced tax rates and tables … he’s saved MY family a shitload of taxes. Thank you Pres. Trump! Thank you!

    3. We are already the better for it. Reshoring manufacturing jobs. Increasing federal revenues about $500 billion per year. Reducing funding to nations with whom we may go to war

      1. Increasing federal revenues about $500 billion per year.

        That’s called a “tax increase”. Conservatives have traditionally been against it.

        1. Conservatives are traditionally against taxpayer tax increases, yes. At no point do I ever recall tariffs being an issue for the bastards. For example, we still have supply management in this shithole, despite a number of ‘conservative’ gov’ts over my lifetime.

          1. At least since WW II, tariffs in the US have been viewed as a way to protect local industries, not raise government revenue. Trump has revived the idea of tariffs being a major source of government revenue.

          3. So you’re boasting about how high of a tax increase this is. Tmes have changed.

  8. the Truck Driver Cuck er I mean Pleb is as liberal as they come. And only mentally deficient plebs and cucks and delusional boomers actually believe PeePee will do anything significantly different from Trudeau and Carney.

    Be Ungovernable

  9. I was mocked for buying the OBVIOUSLY prefabricated, TDS stock market dip. Because Trump’s anti-globalist tariffs. Because Trump’s tariffs would surely destroy the US economy. Run! Get your money OUT of the market NOW! The headlines written by “experts” predicted.

    Pssst … hey Carney! We’re doing just fine without all your Canadian products. Meh. You have NO leverage over US … you never did and you never will. You dipped into your own National reserve of America-hate … only to come up well … “short”. You went short on the US market … I went long. You’re hurting … and I’m just counting money.

  10. Its all bullshit anyway.
    If the fcking governments on both sides of the border would leave us the fck alone, stop spending what they don’t fcking have, pay their fcking debts and shrivel themselves by 95%, we’d all be better off.

    1. Agreed. However … a little push back from Trump is a very nice thing. Damn it feels good to be a gangster.

      But real gangsta-ass niggas don’t flex nuts
      ’cause real gangsta-ass niggas know they got em
      And everythings cool in the mind of a gangsta
      ’cause gangsta-ass niggas think deep
      Up three-sixty-five a year 24/7
      ’cause real gangsta ass niggas don’t sleep

      Sounds like Trump, my niggas.

  11. Okay, in fairness, it was TurdHole who slapped on the tariffs. But he did it (both times) at most likely the behest of Marx Carnage.

    Also, classic car enthusiasts are still penalised. The 25% still applies to automobiles, parts and accessories.

  12. Much of this could have been avoided if Canada had just worked with the United States on that pesky, little, inconsequentially small drug issue. Oh well. (but I wonder why you didn’t?)
    Glad to see Sam Cooper’s work is getting some traction:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/canadas-refusal-cooperate-dea-fentanyl-superlab-investigation-fueled-cross-border
    Again I would point out the year involved — 2022 — it hasn’t only been our big meanie President Trump who has taken umbrage with business as usual in Canada. He just made it a little bit more public.

    1. The drug issue is a transparent excuse. Trump needed an emergency in order to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which (he believes) allows him to impose tariffs on Canada. I suspect one of his real motives was to reclaim the entire North American auto industry back from Canada and Mexico.

      But it may be all for naught. The US Court of International Trade ruled against the tariffs, saying Trump stretched the IEEPA too far. It’s now before the US Court of Appeals.

  13. Trump’s going to be giving in to Carney any day now.

    His fists are bloodied and raw from being beaten on by Carney’s face.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation