Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Roundup: Boissonnault out (for now?)

Posted on by
4

Just before Question Period yesterday, a very brief press release was issued that prime minister Justin Trudeau and Randy Boissonnault “agreed” that Boissonnault would step away from Cabinet in order for Boissonnault to clear the allegations against him. The wording was a little curious, but at this point it was probably inevitable given the sheer volume of stories coming out, never mind that most of them involved coincidences, or unproven allegations about his former business partner and not him.

I’m not going to remark much about any of the allegations, including those of “race-shifting” because Boissonnault has been issuing corrections to media outlets for more than five years that he didn’t say he was Indigenous even if the party said he was (which seems to never get mentioned in these stories), and the Ethics Commissioner keeps looking at each new allegation and saying there’s nothing to investigate. However, what I will note is that we are back to the situation where there is no longer anyone around the Cabinet table from Alberta or Saskatchewan. Now, Freeland did grow up in Alberta and can claim some credibility there, and Jonathan Wilkinson used to work for the Saskatchewan government, so he has some credibility there too, but Trudeau doesn’t have many options when it comes to replacing an Alberta seat because his only other alternative is George Chahal, who pretty much burned his future prospects when he got caught removing a rivals flyers during the campaign, and he has recently been vocal about looking to see Trudeau resign as leader.

I will also note that it remains particularly curious that for as much as media outlets and the National Post most especially have been pouring time and resources into these Boissonnault allegations, and every time they call up another Indigenous leader to denounce Boissonnault and call for his resignation, there is a particular silence around Danielle Smith and previously claims she has made about Indigenous ancestry, which have definitively been proven false. If the Conservatives are so offended by claims Boissonnault may or may not have made, or have been made about him, I have yet to see a single Conservative or pundit in this country call Smith a “fake” or a “fraud,” or a “phoney,” and demand that she resigns for the very same offences they are accusing Boissonnault of having made, when Smith’s has been plainly on the record for a couple of years now. As far as I can determine, the Post ran a single story about it, and not three weeks of constant, breathless reporting about it. It’s incredibly funny how that happens, no?

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has now fired UK-provided cruise missiles into Russian territory, striking targets in Kursk. Ukraine also says it successfully struck a command post in the Belgorod region, likely in a drone attack. Here is a look at the Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “Identity politics” on both sides

Posted on by

As the facile analysis of the Trump victory continues across the political talk shows, there was one particular exchange on Power & Politics last night that I felt deserves a bit more attention, because I think it’s important to call bullshit on, which is the discourse around “identity politics.” There has been a lot written about, particularly over the past two days, about how the left has been too scoldy about said “identity politics” and pronouns, and it caused the public to turn against it, which is both ridiculous given the broad-based rage-and-resentment campaign underway, but it also excuses the very identity politics that the Trump campaign (and the current far-right) play into themselves, particularly with race.

Nevertheless, after this diatribe about identity politics, columnist Emilie Nicolas, who was on that panel, objected and pointed in particular to what is happening right now with young men, who are being raised on a diet of Andrew Tate podcasts and their similar ilk, along with some allusions to the gamer-to-fascism pipeline, who are being taught an absolute load of horseshit about alpha men, male dominance, and rank misogyny. And Nicolas pointed out that this is identity politics, and to insist that it’s only coming from the “left” makes this particular kind of identity politics invisible when that’s exactly what it is.

Trying to dismiss anti-racism, anti-misogyny and anti-homophobia/transphobia as “identity politics” that the general population doesn’t care about (as though the general population consists entirely of white men), while racism, misogyny, and white supremacy are given a free pass and not being called “identity politics” when in fact that is at the core of what they are, is actually kind of damning to those who think the “left” needs to cool it. I do get that the whole “scolding” aspect is something that does need to be re-thought as a tactic, but to pretend that “identity politics” is the domain of the left alone is both wrong, and intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian guided bomb attack hit Zaporizhzhia, killing four, wounding at least 33, destroyed houses and damaged an oncology centre. Energy facilities in the northern Zhytomyr region also suffered damage in a drone attack. President Zelenskyy told a European summit that “peace through strength” is what is needed (which is in part what he is hoping to flatter Trump with), and also said that North Korean forces have suffered casualties when fighting Ukrainian forces in Kursk.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1854554730325787106

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reactions to the Trump win

Posted on by

The (somewhat) surprising victory of Donald Trump meant that the government here in Canada, and other world leaders, had to jump to action to offer obsequious, fulsome (in the proper meaning of the term) congratulations to Trump, while Cabinet ministers insisted that this wasn’t a complete disaster. None was more painful to watch than Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s, where he had to put on a show of making Trump feel like a tough guy in the hopes that Trump won’t immediately sell out Ukraine to Putin. We’re in for a rough few years of thuggery, kleptocracy, outright authoritarianism, and the possible breakup of NATO. It is also not lost on anyone the way in which Viktor Orbán offered his own congratulations to Trump, given that MAGA Republicans have been big fans of Orbán’s work, and hope to replicate it in America, much as Orbán is hoping Trump will help him damage Europe for Putin’s benefit.

In terms of fallout, The Logic has a look at what the economic impacts for Canada are likely to be under the second Trump administration, as well as gets the government’s line about how ready they are for the return of Trump to power. The Star has its own grab-bag of reactions from industry, federal and provincial governments, as well as a look at how this win is likely going to impact plans to combat climate change. The CBC has a look at the various pressure points in the relationship that could be exacerbated.

In reaction, Emmett Macfarlane points out that while the Americans have been dismantling their guardrails, Canada’s are still robust, including our courts and vice-regal officers, in spite of creeping nastiness. The Line makes an interesting supposition about the “collapse of the moral authority of the institutional left,” and while I don’t agree with all of their thinking, there is a point to be made in it. Paul Wells gives his own bigger-picture take, which includes his thought that the Trump win is more of a rejection of governance that has been failing people than anything, while nobody seemed to notice or acknowledge that damage.

I will add that if someone is feeling vindicated today, it’s Justin Trudeau because all of those people who told him to step aside in the hopes that it would replicate the energy and excitement of the Harris campaign, only for Harris to lose. This will just convince him to stick around longer, particularly given his history with Trump, and it will further cement his saviour complex and to disregard the fact that most Canadians are tired of his face (and voice) and that he is becoming the biggest drag on his party.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine says it downed 38 out of 63 drones overnight Tuesday, while a drone attack early morning Thursday damaged an apartment building in Kyiv. Russians claim to have captured two more settlements in Eastern Ukraine. US officials confirm that North Korean troops have engaged in combat in the Kursk region of Russia, which Ukraine occupies part of.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The aftermath and the rhetoric

Posted on by

In the wake of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in the United States, there has been no shortage of reaction in this country, including Justin Trudeau actually calling Trump to send his regards, but the reaction that should raise the most eyebrows was from Pierre Poilievre, who says that he’s happy that the alleged shooter was killed. No call for justice, nothing about the rule of law or due process, just summary execution without a trial. That shouldn’t be a surprise considering he says that he wants to use the Notwithstanding Clause to take away the civil rights of the accused before they have even had a trial, but this is where this kind of rhetoric goes, and we need to be aware of that.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1812525573954064727

While we’re being reassured in Canada that our security services are on the case, the debate over the rhetoric of political violence is ramping up even further in the US, given that they are a country where assassinations and attempted assassinations are far more common, as is gun culture (and a whole pop culture mythology that you solve your problems with guns). Of course, you have the far-right in that country insisting that this is Biden and the Democrats’ fault by pointing out (correctly!) that Trump is a threat to democracy (which he has himself stated that he’s going to be a “dictator on day one”), and so this is his fault. Never mind the normalized rhetoric on their side, where your candidates pose with automatic rifles and post ads of them firing at targets that they label with things like “socialism”—no, it’s only the Democrats’ rhetoric that is at stake, and there are going to be media outlets who will credulously play along with this, and treat normalized violent rhetoric from the right as a non-issue.

This all having been said, we don’t have enough conversations in this country about how much that violent rhetoric is seeping into this country unchallenged, where you have the so-called “convoy crowd” walking around with signs and t-shirts about Trudeau and a hangman’s noose, under the false (and frankly stupid) notion that he’s somehow a “traitor” to this country (or worse, that he’s some kind of communist dictator, as though he has nationalised the means of production in this country and abolished private property), but do we see the Conservatives condemn that rhetoric when they embrace that crowd? Nope. Harassment and attacks against MPs have increased dramatically over the past four years, but nobody wants to talk about it or draw attention to it, and that’s as much of a problem. We’re not as far removed from the violent strain on democracy as we’d like to think we are in this country, which is why we need to remain vigilant, and not pretend like we’re immune.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces claim to have taken control of the village of Urozhaine in the Donetsk region, while Ukraine says they are still fighting in the area. Two people are dead in a “double-tap” attack in the Kharkiv region, where the second missile hit after emergency crews responded to the first hit, which is a tactic Russia is increasingly employing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That Video and worst instincts

Posted on by

For well over the past two days, the news cycle has been consumed with That Video, and the interpretations of what was said on it. And because so many members of our media act feel the need to be tattletales, narcs, and scolds, what was an interesting tableau turned into an international attempt to get someone – particularly Justin Trudeau – in trouble.

First, despite the fact that the scene was spotted by a CBC producer from the NATO pool feed, people started circulating that this was some kind of illegally obtained footage from Russian spies and circulated as disinformation on their Sputnik network. (Nope). Then came everyone interpreting it as some kind of mockery or high school gossip, when it turned out to simply be an animated recounting of the unscheduled press conference, and the surprise announcement that the G7 meeting was to be held at Camp David. And because everyone is a tattletale and a narc, they brought it up at Trump’s press conference with Angela Merkel, he responded by calling Trudeau “two-faced” and that he was just sore because he got called out for not spending enough on defence (that’s not how NATO works), and then he cancelled his closing press conference and went home – but not before remarking before reporters that the whole “two-faced” thing was a big joke to him. Meanwhile, all of the Canadian commentariat is having a meltdown, and all of them went on the air with fantasy versions of just what the conversation was in That Video, and everyone describing it as “disparaging” or “gossip,” when they simply didn’t have the context that Trudeau provided to them the next day when he was pressed about it in his own media availability. So, any serious conversation about the future of NATO was basically overshadowed because a bunch of excitable journalists watched a video, jumped to conclusions, and let their narc instincts get the better of them – and then wouldn’t shut up about it.

And then come the scolding pundits, as night follows day. Like Matt Gurney, who characterized Trudeau as “mocking” and “gossip” and who said that Trump was right about our not spending enough. (Reminder: DND can’t actually get all of the current spending out the door because they don’t have the capacity or manpower, and it will take years to get enough people trained up). Or Heather Scoffield, who is concerned that this could mean Trump will tear up the New NAFTA or start imposing new tariffs – as though he needed excuses anytime in the past. Much more sensible was Susan Delacourt who said that it was about time that world leaders didn’t walk on eggshells around Trump, and that world leaders should stop simply looking on silently as his constant rule-breaking goes on around them.

On top of this incident was the complete mischaracterization of a video of Princess Anne, the Queen, and the Trumps. While there was a longer video where Anne escorts the Trumps to the Queen’s receiving line, and at one point the Queen looks over to her and she shrugs – no one left in the line but me – and everyone carries on. But a shortened clip started circulating and certain journalists falsely characterised it as the Queen chastising Anne for not greeting the Trumps and Anne didn’t care. And yet the false version went viral.

We don’t need Russian disinformation bots. We’re perfectly capable of distributing all manner of breathless disinformation without them. Cripes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Huawei, Trump, and the rule of law

Posted on by

The issue around the arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Vancouver last week took a number of turns yesterday, and is proving to be an utter gong show, thanks entirely to Donald Trump. So, to recap, the US ambassador to Canada stated that there was absolutely no political motivation behind the request for the arrest and extradition to the US, but meanwhile in China, a former Canadian diplomat who now works with International Crisis Group was arrested in China for no apparent reason, and there is no confirmation as to whether this is in retaliation for the Huawei arrest. Back in Vancouver, said CFO was granted bail for $10 million with five guarantors while she will await extradition hearings – and she has to surrender her passport, be under 24/7 surveillance and wear an ankle monitor, because she is considered a high flight risk. (Here’s a good backgrounder on all of the issues).

And then, it all went pear-shaped. Why? Because Donald Trump suddenly said that he’d intervene in the case if it helps to get a trade deal with China, which undermines the rule of law that Canada has been operating under and trying to assure Beijing that we’re operating under, and that because we have an independent judiciary with processes to be followed (which they can’t get their heads around because their judicial system is politicised), and all of the evidence around the criminal activities, allegations of fraud and of violating sanctions is apparently all for naught, because the US president has put his foot in it. And lo, Canada is relatively screwed by the whole thing. Hooray.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1072642206756990978

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier booted from shadow cabinet

Posted on by

The surprising news last night was that Andrew Scheer had finally had enough and removed Maxime Bernier from his shadow cabinet, reassigning his critic portfolio to Matt Jeneroux. The ostensible reason that Bernier was booted? That he uploaded that chapter from his cancelled book in which he decries the tyranny of Supply Management. Never mind that the chapter was already floated to the Globe and Mail and was published weeks ago, which led to the outcry that had Bernier pull the book until his political retirement. Scheer said that this constituted Bernier breaking his word to caucus on the book, never mind that it was already in the public domain.

A more plausible explanation? That Scheer was getting a lot of heat about Bernier’s views about Supply Management in the face of Trump’s tweets about dairy tariffs that are part of the system, where the government could point to Bernier being on Scheer’s front bench as proof that the Liberals cared more about Supply Management than the Conservatives did. In fact, the swipes about this got increasingly nasty in QP the last few days, to the point that Luc Berthold got right indignant about it when it was thrown in his face yesterday. Add to that, there’s a by-election coming up in a rural Quebec riding, where this is one of those issues that they care a lot about, and Scheer (who is campaigning there later this week with the former Bloc leader who has renounced separatism and taken out a Conservative membership card) wanted to prove that he’s listening to Quebeckers on Supply Management – even though Bernier himself is a Quebecker. (Note: This is also why the Conservatives rarely ask Supply Management questions in English during QP – this is all about pandering for Quebec votes).

I do think that this is further proof that there is little room in the current Conservative party for actual free-market conservatives, and that they are working hard to cravenly embrace right-flavoured populism that is divorced from the values that they claim to espouse (as I wrote a year ago when Scheer first won the leadership). My only question now is whether Bernier will be banished to the nosebleeds along with fellow disgraced caucus member Kellie Leitch.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strained partisan detente

Posted on by

There is a strange partisan cold war settling over the nation’s capital, as both government and opposition try to put up a united front against the Trumpocalypse, while at the same time not looking to give up too much advantage, and so they probe areas where their opponents may be weak, but that they won’t look too crassly partisan in exploiting it, kind of like Erin O’Toole did last week when the steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced. The Conservatives and NDP are trying to probe the previous statements about Supply Management “flexibility,” while the Liberals are essentially calling Maxime Bernier a traitor as he starts speaking about his opposition to the system once again. It’s not pretty on either side, and yet here we are.

While Trump has threatened auto tariffs, I’m not sure that’s even remotely feasible given how integrated the whole North American industry is, and those tariffs would not only devastate supply chains, but it would have as many adverse effects on the American industry as it would the Canadian one. Of course, we’re dealing with an uncertainty engine, so we have no idea what he’ll actually do, but hey, the government is working on contingency plans that include further retaliatory measures if these auto tariffs come to pass. As for Trump’s focus on dairy, here’s a look at the size of subsidies that the American dairy industry is awash in. Brian Mulroney, incidentally, thinks this is all a passing storm, for what it’s worth.

Because there are so many more hot takes about developments, Andrew Coyne thinks that there should be debate on how to best retaliate to American threats rather than just rally around the PM. Chantal Hébert notes that Trump has essentially boxed Trudeau in with regards to how he can respond to the threats. Martin Patriquin counsels patience with the Trumpocalypse, so that we don’t go overboard thanks to a few intemperate tweets. Chris Selley notes the sudden burst of solidarity and hopes that they don’t return to bickering over small differences once this crisis passes. Jen Gerson, meanwhile, notes that Trump’s attack are those of a bully trying to pick on a weaker target, but forgets that Canada isn’t weak – we’re just passive aggressive. Gerson was also on Power & Politics(at 1:08:35 in the full broadcast) to say that her genuine fear out of all of this is that it’s all a sideshow designed to turn Canada into some comic enemy for Trump to run against in the upcoming midterms, and I suspect that she’s onto something, and we may be playing into Trump’s hands when if we get self-righteous in our response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing a summit for macho posturing

Posted on by

So, that was quite some G7 summit. I would say that I can’t even, but, well, at this point, it’s becoming harder and harder to be surprised by the Trumpocalypse, so, yeah. For those of you who missed the drama – and it was a hell of a lot of drama – Trump played nice until he took off early from the summit, and then after Justin Trudeau gave a press conference in which he tried very hard to downplay any tensions, but reiterated the same statement’s he’s made plenty of times over the past couple of weeks in talking about how the US tariffs are kind of insulting, and that no, he has no intention of agreeing to a sunset clause with NAFTA, that Trump tweeted up a storm from Airforce One about how Trudeau had stabbed him in the back, and how the steel and aluminium tariffs were in response to our dairy tariffs that form part of the Supply Management system (which puts a lie to the claim that the tariffs were for national security reasons), and that he had instructed his officials to no longer endorse the communiqué that he had previously agreed to. Sunday morning, Trump’s mouthpieces were arguing that there was a special place in Hell for people who negotiate in bad faith with Trump. Oh, and they pretty much confirmed that Trump is going on this rage bender because he wants to look tough in advance of his talks with North Korea, which is…novel. And ridiculous. But to her credit, Chrystia Freeland continued to take the high road, while Trudeau carried on with his meetings with the “outreach” countries who also attended the G7.

Here’s a recounting of the behind-the-scenes moves from the weekend, including the Friday night session between the leaders to hammer out the joint communiqué, and how that was already unravelling the next morning. Senior officials continue to be puzzled by the whole thing, considering that Trudeau has been consistent in his messaging. Trudeau and Freeland tried to keep the focus on what was accomplished – the fund for girls’ education in war-torn regions and the oceans plastic charter (that neither the US nor Japan signed onto, for the record). In the States, John McCain tweeted his support for Canada in this (but it might help if congressional Republicans stood up to Trump over this, but we’ll see if that happens). And that famous photo that everyone is sharing? Other leaders, including Trudeau’s official photographers, are tweeting other angles of it.

In hot takes from this weekend, Evan Solomon says that the government’s tactics need to change as waiting out Trump’s moods is clearly no longer an effective strategy. Scott Gilmore offers suggestions as to how to boycott Trump’s business interests. Paul Wells takes a few well-deserved shots at Trump’s talking heads, and suggests that their calling Trudeau weak is because he hasn’t been, and that perhaps it’s time for Canada and its allies to give a retaliatory response that is worth the Americans fearing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sore loserism and entrails

Posted on by

If you had any money riding on who would be the first to whine that Thursday’s election result was a signal that we need electoral reform, and if you chose Elizabeth May, well, collect your winnings. I spent much of Friday responding to this nonsense, but I will reiterate a couple of points – that if you blame the system because your party did not do better, you’re already missing the point. We’ve seen it happen time and again that when a party has a message that resonates, it’s the non-voters who come out, not the committed party base, and we had increased turnout on Thursday night which meant that people were motivated to throw the bums out. Similarly with Trudeau in 2015 – a significant uptick in voter turnout because they had something that they wanted to vote for/throw the bums out. This matters, and whinging that the system isn’t fair is missing the point entirely. The system works. It needs to be allowed to function the way it was intended. What doesn’t help is using a false number like the popular vote in order to make it look like the system is unfair in order to justify your disappointment is the epitome or sore loserism.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1005214910966452224

In terms of reading Thursday night’s entrails, here’s Paul Wells taking a detailed look at the three campaigns and how each succeeded and failed in their own ways. CBC has a look at how Ford’s use of simple and vague messaging made him look sensible to an angry population. Robert Hiltz looks at the ways in which the Liberals defeated themselves by their craven attempts to hold onto power. Nevertheless, Wynne’s surprise concession days before the election may actually have saved the seats the Liberals did win, according to exit polling done, so that particular strategic calculation may have actually paid off.

Jen Gerson wonders if Doug Ford’s win isn’t akin to a Monkey’s Paw curse – getting what you wish for at a terrible price. Andrew MacDougall wonders what Ford’s win means for modern conservatism given that Ford isn’t really a small-c conservative, nor were his outlandish promises. Similarly, Chris Selley looks at the phenomenon of Ford Nation, the Harper Conservatives that surround him, and the way that Andrew Scheer has suddenly attached himself to the cause. Andrew Coyne (once you get past the griping about the electoral system) warns politicians and pundits not to overread Thursday’s results (hey federal Conservatives and your crowing in QP on Friday – this especially means you), and further wonders if Ford will pull a “cupboard is bare” routine to keep carbon pricing to use the revenues. Jason Kirby mocks up what Ford’s first speech might look like, by referencing earlier speeches about bare cupboards.

Continue reading →