On Power and Politics, Bob Rae says “…We know now what we’re up against… we need to pick our fights, pick our friends. We’re the resistance now, we can’t give up – the stakes are too high. I’m ready to spend the rest of my life fighting this, this is the battle of our lifetime.”

At the end of August, philosopher Tim Snyder wrote a substack about the stupidity of Trump’s trade war against Canada and this is international development consultant John Berry’s comment in response:

I keep seeing Americans saying everything will be fine with Canada after the Mid-Terms. Or at least when Trump is gone in 2029.
And Canadians are saying, Not fuckin’ likely, buddy!
The world is starting to notice too

#Trump ‘s America vs. #Canada
For a time it seemed Americans were too challenged by domestic damage wrought by Trump & Co. to pay attention to their excessive aggro against Canada but there’s been an uptick in US voices denouncing that uncalled-for enmity and now Europeans ears are also opening.
⬇️

[image or embed]

— Elaine Bougie Gilligan (@elainebg.bsky.social) September 17, 2026 at 2:24 PM

Another Canadian comment:

On his substack The BellingHammer, American writer Ron Judd wrote this article at the end off August: ‘He doesn’t speak for us?’ Sorry: Yes, he does We all own blame for what ‘we’ are doing to Canada — and ourselves

In the blizzard of angst following the Buffoon in Chief’s reupping of an unimaginably stupid dumping upon our estranged friendly Canadian neighbors, I’m not even sure which American snowflake dropped the line on antisocial media:
“We’re (still) so sorry Canada. Please know he doesn’t speak for us.”
Nice try. And: If only.
…While it’s calming to our nerves and, and a predictable, even necessary survival skill amid the present great unpleasantness, the “doesn’t speak for us” line is right up there with “This is not who we are.”
Sit down for this one, folks. Hopefully within sight of a mirror.
It actually is who we — or at least far too many of us — are, as a national body. And yeah, by the nature of our “representative democracy,” he speaks for us. Loudly, crudely, stupidly, embarrassingly and very, very, very often, as is the case with any craven, self-serving malignant narcissist handed the keys to the world’s richest kingdom.
For the historical record: This handing was done not once, but twice.
The latter matters: Anyone can make a mistake, be duped, experience temporary insanity. But an entire nation of someones doing so, failing to grasp the lesson, and doing so again leaves only several explanatory choices: Lazy, stupid, or every bit as evil as the anointed megaphone-holder and his henchpeople.
I’m doubling down here on the first two, saving the latter description for the relatively small portion of the public with swastikas tattooed on their souls, if not their skin.
But the rest of you, buckle up and get real….

Ron Judd also writes a follow-up article here which includes some of the Canadian comments he received about his piece.

Here is another American who gets it – of course its Governor Newsom, one of the few Democrats I think could win the presidency in 2028.

@natz920

Apparently Gavin Newsom didn’t realize just how angry Canadians are. 🇨🇦 Well… now you know. 👀 When trust gets broken, you don’t just flip a switch and fix it. Rebuilding what’s been damaged will take years. Canadians are friendly. We’re welcoming. But we’re also fiercely proud of our country. 🍁❤️ Respect takes time to rebuild. 🇨🇦

♬ original sound – Nat 🇨🇦

Next,  I can’t get over the gutlessness of our Conservative Party.
On his substack, Kevin Boucher writes a definitive takedown of Peter MacKay for thinking that Carney shouldn’t have given an honest and truthful response when the New York Times asked if Canada had ever considered a US military invasion.

….Carney was asked whether, during the past 18 months, he had seriously considered the possibility that the United States might use military force against Canada. According to Matina Stevis-Gridneff, the Times’ Canada bureau chief, who was in the room, Carney didn’t jump on the question. He paused for several seconds, took a deep breath and appeared to think very carefully about the words he was about to use. Then he answered. Yes, it had been considered.

He called it an “extreme tail risk,” something extremely unlikely. But when you’re responsible for the risks facing a country, failing to prepare for something just because it’s unlikely would itself be irresponsible.

That may have been the most Mark Carney answer imaginable. He’s a risk manager. Central bankers don’t get to prepare only for what they think will happen. They stress-test the system and ask what happens when the assumptions fail. The question isn’t just what I think will happen. It’s what could happen, what it would cost, and whether we’re ready if it does.

Peter MacKay doesn’t see it that way. The former Conservative foreign affairs and defence minister went on CTV on Thursday and called Carney’s comments “irresponsible and irrational.” …
…His yardstick for every Canadian decision was the same: how will Washington take it? Not once did I hear him ask whether a decision was good for Canada.

Conservatives have always talked about patriotism. If patriotism matters, you say Canada first, and you say it loudly. MacKay never said it once. Every question came back to the relationship and how Washington would react. He’s entitled to that view, and there’s an honest case for putting the relationship first. But then let’s introduce him honestly, not as a voice for Canada’s interests but as a voice for keeping Washington happy.

Washington talks to whoever it wants. Canada is supposed to check first. That isn’t a partnership. That’s asking permission.

The CTV host pointed out that Carney had simply been asked a question and answered that governments have to manage every risk, even the remote ones. MacKay said Carney should have “flipped the script” and talked instead about fighting side by side in every war since the War of 1812, about NORAD, NATO and Five Eyes. In other words, don’t answer the uncomfortable question. Give the reassuring answer.

Here’s the problem with that advice. As Chantal Hébert pointed out, Carney really had three possible answers. He could say no comment, which everyone would read as a yes. He could say it never crossed his mind, which would be a lie. Or he could tell the truth: it’s an extreme scenario, but it’s our job to think through every scenario when someone keeps saying he wants to annex you.

Matina Stevis-Gridneff, the Times reporter in the room, made the same point from the other side of the table. If Carney had dodged, she said, it “would have been very noticeable.” In her words, “We would have parsed the evasion.” The non-answer MacKay wanted would have been the story. Instead, Carney took a long pause and answered carefully. “I think he wanted to be honest,” she said. “I think he didn’t want to lie.” …

…The idea that Carney’s answer will frighten Canadians gets weaker the closer you look. This isn’t even news. Back in January, the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s military had modelled how it would respond to an American invasion, relying on insurgency and hit-and-run tactics. Canadians read it, and nobody panicked. People went to work, paid their mortgages and kept watching the news.

So when Carney was asked about it eight months later, he didn’t reveal a secret. He confirmed, in the most general terms possible, something Canadians already knew. He called it extremely unlikely, and he refused to say anything more. That’s not fearmongering. That’s treating Canadians like adults.

MacKay wants to manage what Canadians hear so they don’t get anxious, and he wants to manage what the prime minister says so Washington doesn’t get upset. Carney seems to think the country can handle the truth. I think he’s right….

Carney keeps on keeping on. People are starting to comment on Carney’s push to reduce the influence of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. America isn’t going to like that, but he’s right.
In The Globe and Mail, financial columnist Konrad Yakabuski pooh-poohs Carney’s suggestions.

…The question remains whether he is again tilting at windmills by reprising his calls for a reduction of the U.S. dollar’s dominance in global finance.

The move may win him more fans among the BRICs and emerging economies that seek to end the greenback’s stranglehold on global trade and finance. But it is unlikely to yield tangible results while he is Prime Minister.

Oh I don’t know about that — seems to me that ever since Davos, the world has been listening to Carney and taking seriously his methods for dealing with Trump.

…Carney could have ducked the whole idea. He could have bobbed and weaved and done nothing to feed the image of American troops storming onto Canadian soil. Instead, he gave it just enough oxygen to fuel headlines in the Times and elsewhere.

Why? There’s always the chance it was just a gaffe (i.e. what happens when a politician inadvertently lets slip an awkward truth). But coming from a leader so careful with his words, it doesn’t feel that way. Instead, it seems Carney was sending a message to Canadians, to Trump, and to the world at large.

For Canadians, even acknowledging he’s thought about the military option underlines the seriousness of the moment, of the “rupture” Carney says has happened in the world order and more specifically in the Canada-U.S. relationship.

For Trump, it’s another in a series of rather direct remarks Carney has been making about the relationship and the president himself. The PM isn’t stifling himself as much as he did until a few weeks ago. He’s allowed himself to push back against Trump’s insults. He isn’t just taking it, as he clearly felt he had to when making nice with Trump at all costs seemed vital to getting a trade deal. The message: we’re not afraid of you.

For the world at large, it’s another step in Carney’s emergence as the de facto leader of those countries that are taking their distance from the United States, hedging their bets against Trump’s unpredictability and hostility.

More concretely, Carney used the same interview to make clear he’s aiming at “systematically reducing Canada’s reliance on the United States for key technology — from space satellites to fighter jets,” as the Times summed up his message.

… Carney wasn’t all doom-and-gloom with the Times. He said he thinks he still has a good relationship with Trump, talked up the value of an integrated auto sector, and said he doesn’t contemplate using energy as a weapon in the trade dispute.

That’s all fine. But what a moment when the prime minister acknowledges he’s been contemplating the possibility of the U.S. turning its guns north.

We’ll all need to learn the American Dictator game:

“Making Board Games Great Again”

A Canadian friend sent me this. Love it! We share the same sardonic humour.

www.e-upgames.com

[image or embed]

— EU Paul (@casualwoke.bsky.social) September 26, 2026 at 1:02 AM

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…

[image or embed]

— EU Paul (@casualwoke.bsky.social) September 26, 2026 at 1:04 AM

The sheer irony of the US replacing the British Constitutional Monarchy with a Hitler-esque authoritarian government 250 years later isn’t wasted on the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or other Commonwealth countries.
That’s not an invitation to rejoin! 😄

— EU Paul (@casualwoke.bsky.social) September 26, 2026 at 1:12 AM