Dark web, you’ll figure it out.

The USA, famously the only country.

The shared orientation makes me wonder if it was a smaller version of the tunguska event. Trees were flattened but grew back upwards over time.

You abandoned the topic in favour of buzzwords first babe.

Damn, small city.

Urban sprawl doesnt always work like that though. Often residential areas extend faster than the amenities catch up.

Theres plenty of places nowhere near shops and restaurants, wdym?

I was translating.

You can tell by the first word.

Im not particularly hard up just saying a lot of people are.

Unsure why that upset you.

Translation, when I was young my parents could afford a home in a nice area with lots of local cuisine. My generation isnt so lucky.

Lazy buzzword deflection, if you were paying attention to the conversation you should know the context has remained consistent.

If you arent, you’re just responding emotionally for some reason. Seems like a waste of your time.

You’re confusing “countries can hold grudges” with “countries will permanently refuse mutually beneficial trade because of a previous administration.”

Countries don’t need to forgive or forget anything. They just need the trade to be in their interests.

Im British. I can see why you dogged on this for so long but there’s no gain in posturing here.

Realistically, there is no reason Canada wouldnt accept a favourable trade deal from the US if offered. That just isnt how the world works, if you think elsewise you haven’t been paying attention.

Yes with the implication being that you are being silly and im matching your energy while still conveying my general intent.

Keep up.

Because countries dont keep grudges with each other decades after the grudge initiator lost power.

Is that a frustrating attribute of a country with constantly shifting values?

Yes. Absolutely.

Will it stop anyone trading with them when those values are good? Not really, because at the end of the day holding grudges is for children.

That being said, if you slinging absolutes in outrage makes you feel better, I support that, you’ve every right to be outraged, but i’ll cant lie to you and say I believe your angry assertions.

Like I said, absolutes are for idiots.

You’re talking about the current situation, as you say, im talking about how it’ll go down the line.

Objectively they are a right wing party, you are a right wing country, nothing overtly left wing is allowed to exist. You might have a handful of policies that are vaguely reminiscent of left wing policies, but the reality is you have a right wing party and an extremely right wing party.

Surprisingly good but obviously very silly.

Stoking and then preying upon the hope of people with less than you is a pretty established and reliable tactic.

So losing is convincing, but voting for people who you believe personally benefit regardless of whether they win or lose is the solution?

Whats the mechanism there?

And I think “agree with my electoral strategy or you deserve to be punched in the mouth” rather neatly demonstrates the problem with your conception of politics 😂 you must end up in a lot conversations that frustrate you.

Only the sith deal in absolutes.

Losing is quite convincing. If enough people withdraw their support that you lose an election, you have a pretty strong incentive to win them back.

If you genuinely think threats of violence and terrorism are the only way to exert political pressure, I think we’ve reached a fairly fundamental disagreement. Thats lazy thinking as far as im concerned.

Yeah totally, but it wont stop them from happening, it’ll just reframe the negotiations and the specifics they eventually land on.

And likely heavily in Canadas favour.

You’re conflating habitual non-voters with previously reliable voters deliberately withdrawing their support. They’re not politically equivalent.

A huge group that routinely doesn’t vote, for thousands of different reasons, sends no coherent signal. A measurable part of your coalition abandoning you over specific failures absolutely does.

And “make them fear you” is just a more dramatic way of describing electoral leverage. If losing those voters can cost Democrats elections, they have an incentive to win them back.

Whether they actually respond correctly is another question. But guaranteeing them your vote regardless of what they do certainly gives them less reason to, im sure you can appreciate that much?