Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Invokes War of 1812 to Insult Canada, Allowing Journos to Prove They’re Completely Historically Ignorant

Trump Invokes War of 1812 to Insult Canada, Allowing Journos to Prove They’re Completely Historically Ignorant

History, how does it work?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-4FaTv1mcM

I’ve been giggling for a solid 30 minutes over this one.

Someone, probably the Canadians, leaked the details of a “testy” call between President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to CNN. This call supposedly happened in May, according to sources, and was the result of Trump’s tariff games.

CNN published the scoop as an EXCLUSIVE story.

During the call, Trump allegedly accused Canada of being a national security threat. Confused, Trudeau sought clarification, to which Trump retorted: “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?”

From CNN:

President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had a testy phone call on May 25 over new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration targeting steel and aluminum imports coming from Canada, including one moment during the conversation in which Trump made an erroneous historical reference, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN.

According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a “national security” issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?” referring to the War of 1812.

The problem with Trump’s comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

When asked if the comment was received as a joke, one source on the call said: “To the degree one can ever take what is said as a joke. The impact on Canada and ultimately on workers in the US won’t be a laughing matter.”

Trudeau has publicly denounced the “national security” justification for the new tariffs.

“The idea that we are somehow a national security threat to the United States is, quite frankly, insulting and unacceptable,” Trudeau told NBC’s Meet the Press.

To clarify, Canada is not a national security threat. Apparently, that’s something that needs clarification?

Anyway, as if that wasn’t golden enough, journalists, namely CNN’s prissy-britched Acosta, jumped to point out Trump’s historical wrongness…but it’s not Trump who’s wrong.

This paragraph in the EXCLUSIVE scoop doesn’t even make sense:

The problem with Trump’s comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

But Acosta persisted nonetheless:

Acosta wasn’t the only one. Here’s an NBC reporter, also confused about how history works:

Who wants to explain the British colonies to him? Anyone?

In case there’s still any doubt, the Smithsonian is here to school us all:

And still more here.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

See what I mean? Trump is not the Teflon President, that’s actually Vibranium.

It’s not that attacks simply don’t stick to him, the attacks bounce off him and injure the aggressors.

I think Trump was wrong on this one. See below for an analysis that the troops that burned the White House were from Wellington’s expeditionary force out of Spain, and presumably included very few residents of the area now called Canada.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17rgyh/was_it_canadians_or_british_who_burned_down_the/

I guess you could argue that as a former British colony, Canada is responsible for everything Britain did. (E.g., Canada ruled the seas, defeated the Spanish Armada, etc.) If not, I think it is more accurate to say that Britain burned the White House.

    Fen in reply to J Mann. | June 6, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    Did Hawaii incinerate Nagasaki or did the United States? They were a territory until 1959.

    If they were now an independent nation, negotiating sbtrade deal with Japan, would it be unreasonable for the Japanese to bring up Nagasaki with “well you guys burned it down”

    The war of 1812 was started over British ships ambushing American commercial vessels and forcing captured Americans to work on their ships, impressment. So why do you think Anerica would retaliate by attacking Toronto and Montreal?

    Why, according to Kemberlee’s article, do Canadians celebrate the day British troop’s burning of the American Capitol? As a British territory, did their men serve in the British Army?

    Back to the territory of Hawaii – approx 2000 natives served in the US military during WW2. None were at the firebombing of Dresden. Would a German vacationing at Hanalei Bay be wrong for quipping “you guys burned Dresden to the ground”?

    ..

    “The colony of New France was established in 1534 and was ceded to the United Kingdom in 1763 after the French defeat in the Seven Years’ War. … In 1867, the Province of Canada was joined with two other British colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia through Confederation, forming a self-governing entity named Canada”

      Fen in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 4:10 pm

      Ah nevermind. Tom’s rebuttal downthread at 3:58 is better than mine. Check it out.

        J Mann in reply to Fen. | June 7, 2018 at 1:47 pm

        Thanks Fen – I’ll reply in detail to Tom. I’m a strong Legal Insurrection supported, but I still think Kimberlee has this one mostly wrong.

          J Mann in reply to J Mann. | June 7, 2018 at 1:48 pm

          … although obviously not a strong enough supported to spell Kemberlee’s name correctly – my apologies!

      myiq2xu in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 4:36 pm

      Nagasaki was revenge for Pearl Harbor.

      mrzee in reply to Fen. | June 10, 2018 at 12:07 pm

      I don’t know where Kemberlee got his information, but as a Canadian senior citizen who has lived most of his life in Toronto, I’ve NEVER heard of a celebration for burning the White House.

All of this is racist. Somehow.

Perspective, Canada has a population of approx 36 million, one tenth the US population.

If they were a State, they would rank #2 behind California’s population of 39 million.

Best is the night time sattellite view. Most their population is huddled up against our northern border:

https://goo.gl/images/mxfcKE

Oh Canada, if you’re not hiding behind our skirt, you’re nipping at our heels.

Jordan Petterson has an interesting take on Trudeau.

Trudeau’s solutions “are the solutions children toy with when they have no idea what they are talking about”

https://youtu.be/56SLJGbBlBU

“History, how does it work?”

Nice. Next thing you know, you’re going to be asking journalists to math or something.

(Seriously, I held my nose to vote for Pres. Trump but BOY HOWDY has he exceeded my expectations. The entertainment value alone of watching all of my “betters” lose their ever-loving minds over and over and over again is worth it. An increasingly conservative bench and a robust economy SHOULD be the most positive reward, but I really think that I’m enjoying the entertainment the most. Bad me.)

    Fen in reply to Anonamom. | June 6, 2018 at 4:19 pm

    Same here. He was a placeholder for me, solely to keep Hillary out of power. My guy was Cruz.

    Since then? It’s like discovering that wretched cow in some frozen tundra I was destined to marry for political alliance turned out to be Elizabeth I.

    Okay, a bit of hyperbole there, but… Just wow.

      MarkSmith in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 4:35 pm

      Reviewing the recent text message from Page/Strzok, it sounds like they had Cruz as one of their targets. I think Trump caught them off guard and they could not get enough on him in time.

      My Canadian friends from the great white north use to brag about the US losing the War of 1812. I use to say hey, I don’t think so, but they always reminded me that the White House got burned. My other Canadian friends also reminded me that instead of putting Indians on reservations, the British Canadians just killed them.

        Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | June 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm

        No, they didn’t. They protected them, until the war made them reassess that policy.

        They also had a significant number of escapes slaves, who fought hard for them because they knew that if we won the war they would be reenslaved and sent back to their owners.

          RobM in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 8:49 pm

          Uh, cough, cough… The Pontiac Indians would like you to call them… oh wait, nevermind… the British kinda had a thing with killing them all.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 1:43 am

          What Pontiac Indians? Pontiac was a person, not a tribe. He led a war against the British, which ended in a negotiated peace, and led to the Proclamation of 1763 guaranteeing to the Indians the land west of the Appalachians. When we wanted to take that land the British stopped us, which became of the reasons for the war of 1812.

          EthnicCatholic in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 7:19 am

          The British armed and weaponized the native tribes to carry out terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the US settlers before the war of 1812, it was one of the reasons we had the war. Huzzah! Tippacanoe!!

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 7:29 am

          In reality, the French were far more successful in that enterprise than were the Brits.

      myiq2xu in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 4:35 pm

      You do realize that Elizabeth I was never married, don’t you? That’s why she is “The Virgin Queen”

When Sir George Prevost wrote to Admiral Cochrane to request that he inflict a bit of ravage & rapine on American towns as retaliation for some American arson in Canada, he was Britain’s Governor-General of The Canadas. So, does that make the suggestion British, or Canadian? Cochrane was a Scot, based at the time in Bermuda, so no Canadian connection there … though he did command both the squadron based there and the one based in Halifax, so Canada comes back like a bad penny.

More to the point, perhaps, is the modern Canadian belief that Canada whooped the US but good in the War of 1812. That, however, is confined to the relatively small population who have ever even heard of it. I’ve certainly never run into a Canadian who knew anything about it. In that sense Canadians are much like Americans.

    Saratoga in reply to tom_swift. | June 6, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    From my point of view there was entirely too much arson going on and no one took the war very seriously!

      Fen in reply to Saratoga. | June 6, 2018 at 4:13 pm

      Lol. Very funny but also true.

      It was a very ill-conceived idea.

      Close The Fed in reply to Saratoga. | June 6, 2018 at 4:18 pm

      Well, I’m sure the Americans impressed by the Brits and their families paid a lot of attention. Thousands if not tens of thousands of Americans were basically kidnapped and forced into service on British ships!

        Saratoga in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 4:29 pm

        Well excuse me!! I forgot to add the /sarc.

        Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 4:30 pm

        Kidnapped? They were UK citizens, and they were drafted, as all British sailors were subject to being. To this day dual citizens are subject to conscription by their other country. And to this day many countries do not recognize renunciation of citizenship.

        The number of sailors with dual UK/US citizenship taken off US ships could not possibly have been in the tens of thousands, and is unlikely to have been even one thousand.

          Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:02 pm

          Re: Milhouse:

          It’s possible I’m mixing up the kidnappings and enslavements by the Barbary pirates with the Brits, as they both occurred during Th. Jefferson’s presidency.

          Regardless, the idea that in 1812, 30 years after the end of the Revolutionary War, that Br. would be claiming U.S. Citizens was ridiculous.

          I cannot locate the numbers in my Th. Jefferson biography by Jon Meacham. I was sure they were in there.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:16 pm

          A little help from PBS who rewrites history:

          http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/american-perspective/

          Most scholars agree that the war was fought over maritime issues, particularly the Orders in Council, which restricted American trade with the European Continent, and impressment, which was the Royal Navy’s practice of removing seamen from American merchant vessels. In contemporary parlance, the war was fought for “Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights.” These issues seem arcane today. Moreover, the only way that the United States to strike at Great Britain was by attacking Canada, and that made it look like a war of territorial aggression. Even today Canadians are likely to see the war in this light, and who can blame them? A war fought to secure maritime rights by invading Canada strikes many people as curious.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:22 pm

          New/Old Slogan ” “Free Trade and Sailor’s Rights.”

          https://www.thoughtco.com/impressment-of-sailors-1773327

          Impressment As a Cause of the War of 1812

          The issue of impressment, by itself, was not cause for war, even after the Leopard and Chesapeake incident. But impressment was one of the reasons given for the war by the War Hawks, who at times shouted the slogan “Free Trade and Sailor’s Rights.”

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:25 pm

          Drafted?

          “Kidnapped? They were UK citizens, and they were drafted, as all British sailors were subject to being. ”

          Britain’s Royal Navy, which constantly needed many recruits to man its ships, long had a practiced of using “press gangs” to forcibly recruit sailors.

          The working of the press gangs were notorious: typically a group of sailors would go forth into a town, find drunken men in taverns, and essentially kidnap them and force them to work on British warships.

          tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:27 pm

          Br. would be claiming U.S. Citizens was ridiculous.

          A common claim—which might even, sometimes, have been true—was that impressed Americans were actually sailors of British origin, even if not genuine Royal Navy deserters, and that therefore Britain could still press them into service.

          In practice, a Royal Navy captain was considered responsible for seeing that his ship was adequately repaired, provisioned, and manned, no matter what he had to do to accomplish that. And Navy expectations were taken quite seriously after Admiral Byng was executed by firing squad on the quarterdeck of his own flagship after his court-martial for failing to execute his duty with satisfactory alacrity (in his case, the relief of the siege of Minorca). No career Navy man would willingly risk court-martial for failing to impress enough men to sail his ship. Cutting a few procedural corners and ignoring some legal niceties was inevitable.

          In the case of deserters, the R.N. would impress the suspect, try him for desertion, then hang him … which hardly relieved the manpower shortage, but that’s government work for you.

          So, how common was impressment? I don’t have any general figures off the top of my head … but when Isaac Hull sailed from Boston to attack the detested Guerriere, Constitution closed to “half pistol shot” (however far that was) before its first broadside; Captain Dacres had time to send his impressed Americans below, so they’d be out of the fight. I recall there were three of them. A frigate’s full crew in those days was 450 men, though in practice they were always a bit short-handed.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:46 pm

          They weren’t claiming US citizens. They were claiming UK citizens who had become US citizens. The UK, like many countries to this day, did not recognize renunciation of citizenship. UK sailors owed a duty in wartime to serve when and as needed, and as far as the UK was concerned they couldn’t unilaterally rid themselves of this duty just by moving to the US and becoming citizens there. Under the laws of war at the time, belligerents were entitled to stop neutral ships, search for contraband headed for the enemy, and remove any of their citizens they found aboard. The US however took the attitude that these were no longer UK citizens, and the UK had no business conscripting them. Nowadays the US advises dual citizens that they are indeed subject to being conscripted by their other country.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:51 pm

          The working of the press gangs were notorious: typically a group of sailors would go forth into a town, find drunken men in taverns, and essentially kidnap them and force them to work on British warships.

          This was in British towns, not foreign ones. The complain here was that legally only sailors were subject to conscription; essentially the risk of conscription was the price a UK citizen paid for the right to work as a sailor; but press gangs weren’t too punctilious about determining whether someone was a sailor, and sometimes relied on “evidence” such as being present at a port, or at a tavern frequented by sailors, or having a maritime tattoo.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 6:11 pm

          Yea, I bet the Press Gang really cared what citizenship they were. My point was it didn’t matter where they were, they were going to impress. I am betting they did not give a crap who they got or what their citizenship was.

          https://www.marinersmuseum.org/sites/micro/usnavy/08/08a.htm

          Lord Nelson estimated that between 1793 and 1801 perhaps as many as 40,000 men deserted the navy. With demand for sailors always high and supply sometimes lacking, it is not surprising that the press gangs preyed from time to time on protected men, including Americans.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 1:55 am

          The ignorance burns. You are mixing up two completely different things. British press gangs only operated in British ports. I suppose it’s inevitable that they swept up the occasional foreigner who happened to be present in a British port. The US, on the other hand, never even pretended not to conscript foreigners. If you lived here you were fair game.

          But that has nothing to do with the issue that became the official pretext for the war, which was not press gangs, but Royal Navy ships stopping US ships, which they had every right to do, and taking off those sailors who were found to be UK citizens. There is no allegation and no likelihood that they ever took anyone who was not, under UK law, a British subject. The only problem was that some of these sailors were also US citizens.

          tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 8:50 am

          Oopsies, my mistake. Of the 250 or so survivors on Guerriere, ten were pressed Americans, not three.

          Maybe I should stop doing these things from memory.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 10:08 am

          “The ignorance burns.” Get a clue, if they did not take whoever they could, they would get their heads cut off. Do you really believe that the empire where the sun never sets really followed rules?

          My point was they would grab anyone they could anywhere. Any yes, the War Hawks used it for justifying the War of 1812, but there was more to it including Madision being a wimp. Best thing going for him was Dolly.

          Madison wrote a great Constitution but when Jefferson messed with him he became a complete wimp. His Presidency reflects that.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 7, 2018 at 12:14 pm

          Yes, the Royal Navy did follow rules. To the letter. Especially when stopping neutral ships, where any breach of the rules could lead to war (as happened in this case even following the rules, because the US didn’t like the rules).

    daniel_ream in reply to tom_swift. | June 6, 2018 at 5:28 pm

    I’ve certainly never run into a Canadian who knew anything about it.

    Neat trick, that, as it’s taught in the standard Grade 7 and 8 history here and the areas where the major battles occurred have War of 1812 events annually. Now, that may be local to Ontario as that’s where the battles were actually fought; I can see Alberta and Saskatchewan not giving a toss.

      tom_swift in reply to daniel_ream. | June 6, 2018 at 5:40 pm

      Interesting. Perhaps they know it but just don’t want to admit it.

      Or maybe they just don’t want to talk to me.

      What’s this about Alberta and Saskatchewan having a Trade War with Canada over liscence plates?

      Maybe we should liberate them.

      Mercyneal in reply to daniel_ream. | June 6, 2018 at 6:50 pm

      I’m a former Canadian and I was taught this in sixth or seventh grade. You must not be running into the right people.

    J Mann in reply to tom_swift. | June 7, 2018 at 1:52 pm

    This makes sense – you could reasonably call Prevost Canadian, but both Cochrane and his commander Robert Ross were in the British military. Cochrane was Scottish, Ross Irish, and the troops used were British military troops fresh from the first Napoleonic war, who literally sailed from Europe to Bermuda and the US Coast without even going to Canada.

    Canada may have suggested burning the White House, but IMHO it’s more accurate to say the British did it for them.

Trump speaks off the cuff and it is amazing that his knowledge is so encyclopedic. Do you think our 57 state president knew our history 1/10th as well.

    Milhouse in reply to dunce1239. | June 6, 2018 at 4:25 pm

    Well, I doubt Trump actually knew about this either before he moved into the White House.

    But yes, of course he was right — and of course he understands that it was 204 years ago, and that we’ve been friends with Canada since about the 1880s.

    BTW, as noted correctly here, the British did not burn Washington, but only the White House, Capitol, and other federal government buildings. They left private property strictly alone, despite the fact that we were not nearly so scrupulous when we burned Toronto. It was a different era.

    And the cause of the war in the Midwest was that we wanted to steal the Indians’ land, and the British wouldn’t let us. As a result of the war the British decided it was no longer in their interest to protect the Indians from us, so they stopped standing in our way. From that point of view we won. But we didn’t get Canada, which was also one of our objectives, so from their point of view they won.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 4:36 pm

      AND we have treaties in place with Canada for both mutual defense and the supply of strategic materials.

      The whole T-rump tariff tantrum is based on a lie, and is economic insanity. That’s not how you produce “winning”.

      MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 4:42 pm

      Give me a break. The beloved FDR screwed England over during WWII based on past history. Churchill gave up a lot of property and bought a bunch of crappy ships in the deal to help them out. Sure we had a lovey relationship with England before WWII.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm

      but only the White House, Capitol, and other federal government buildings.

      Including the Library of Congress.

      There was nothing quite like it in Toronto.

        Ragspierre in reply to tom_swift. | June 6, 2018 at 5:17 pm

        People who were left homeless might disagree.

        jpwcpa in reply to tom_swift. | June 7, 2018 at 1:30 pm

        Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint session of Congress back in July 2003, and among his remarks, he apologized for the British burning the Library of Congress. (According to the transcript of the speech, “I know this is, kind of, late, but sorry.”)

      elliesmom in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 5:23 pm

      Trump graduated from New York Military Academy. Military History would have been a required course. I’m sure he was well-versed in the history of the War of 1812 as a high school student.

        tom_swift in reply to elliesmom. | June 6, 2018 at 5:37 pm

        The first American general history of the War of 1812 was written by … [Mr Maestro—a drumroll, please] … Teddy Roosevelt. So for Presidents and 1812, there’s some precedent.

        Actually, the progress of the war on land had been so embarrassing (excepting, perhaps, Winfield Scott at Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane … and maybe the Thames, where Tecumseh was killed) that Teddy changed it to an account of the war at sea, both naval and privateer, which had worked out far better. Though he couldn’t resist tacking on a chapter about Andrew Jackson and New Orleans.

      RobM in reply to Milhouse. | June 6, 2018 at 8:54 pm

      Come on Milhouse! He went to a military academy!! Do you really think they didn’t study US military history?? ( and KNOW it??) Seriously!!? Are you that ate up ?

Close The Fed | June 6, 2018 at 4:21 pm

Frankly, Trump is Vibranium, but that’s beside the point.

The point is, it IS a national security matter when our people are unemployed and their problems add to a $20 trillion dollar deficit which is UNSUSTAINABLE.

We’re dying the death of a billion cuts and Trump is working hard to stop all the billion fleas that are sapping us of our life’s blood.

I’ve read Corker is going to be introducing a bill to prevent Trump from imposing tariffs. A misguided action if ever there was one! Trump is getting all kinds of concessions with them, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.

One electorate gave us McCain, another Corker. We need to disown those fools!

    Close The Fed in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 4:30 pm

    How can anyone downvote my comment with regard to our national security and the debt?

    Tell me, how do we get out of this debt without serious hardship? How?!

    We are funding China’s military buildup: think about THAT for a while.

    If we fight them, we will also be funding them. We have let the Fed inflate our money so that it’s worthless and we borrow instead of save, and it’s very, very, bad.

      MarkSmith in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 4:49 pm

      Almost want to down vote you for whining. Don’t worry about it. The Jacobin Cat Love has the record of something like 65 down votes. When you get to that level you need to be worried.

        Close The Fed in reply to MarkSmith. | June 6, 2018 at 5:11 pm

        Dear Mr. Smith:

        Thank you very much for reminding me that less than a handful of downvotes isn’t grounds for unhappiness.

        Sincerely,
        CTF

      National Security gets the dv because we have NeverTrumpers who hate Trump more than they love America.

      Trump can renegotiate a better trade deal with Canada. His critics cannot abide that.

        Close The Fed in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 5:05 pm

        Dear Fen:
        Thank you for explaining the inexplicable to me!
        CTF

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 5:11 pm

        This is more of your typical bullshit.

        The T-rumpian tariff tantrums have HURT our military. Everything that incorporates steel or aluminum is more expensive, diluting the value of every dollar allocated to defense.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 6:42 pm

          Darn, you sure know a lot about defense big boy. Talk about wasted defense spending take a good look at all the fairy dust McCain has spread around the world. Let throw in a few Clinton/Kerry stuff including making sure pencil neck Adam Shiffy’s district gets his fair share. You have no clue what you are talking about. The problem is not Trump but all the other idiots with their hands out in Congress.

          Retrofitting our older planes still fly better than these F35’s.

          Here is an example:

          The cost of the F-35 jet program, already the most expensive U.S. weapons program ever, is estimated to climb further as the plane’s production period gets extended, according to figures submitted to Congress on Monday.

          …..
          McCain’s panel authorized in its version of the fiscal 2018 spending request 24 additional F-35 over the 70 the Pentagon requested.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/f-35-program-costs-jump-to-406-billion-in-new-pentagon-estimate

          Trump has caved to the Defense contractors, but at least he stop GD from building our F16’s in India.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 7:49 pm

          You can’t refute what I said. Neither can anyone else.

          So you deflect and attack.

          Typical.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 10:10 pm

          Can’t refute what you say because you don’t say anything.

      There is a very pervasive mindset that every deal that is in place is a good, fair deal. Thus, the idea of tearing them up, or threatening to walk away cannot be countenanced by these folks. It doesn’t occur to them that maybe those deals were heavily biased against the US: we’re such an economic dominance that we can afford crappy deals if we’re trying to prop someone else up. Doesn’t mean it can’t be improved, though. But that’s unthinkable…

        Ragspierre in reply to ss396. | June 7, 2018 at 12:57 pm

        There’s a pervasive myth…fueled by rank demagoguery…that all international deals NOT made by Mssr. Arte D’ Deal are unfair to the U.S.

        NOBODY has suggested that the U.S. should not revisit any deal. Ever.

        What’s on the table is the stupid, destructive, anti-liberty capricious imposition of dictatorial BIG GOVERNMENT central planning by Progressive Mr. Establishment.

    Ragspierre in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 4:56 pm

    By the logic of your argument, all our entitlements are “national security threats”.

    It’s not a position on which I’m entirely opposed, but I think you have to be careful and accurate when applying terms.

    “We’re dying the death of a billion cuts and Trump is working hard to stop all the billion fleas that are sapping us of our life’s blood.”

    You don’t do that by capricious application of BIG GOVERNMENT central planning. It has the OPPOSITE effect.

    Historically, tariffs are net causes of job loss. This isn’t even debatable. We have the data.

    Dicking around with an entire economy is not how you create jobs. Clearing the way for markets will do that “magically”. But you have to understand that and have that as a core value.

    IFFFFF T-rump were serious about fiscal responsibility, he’d do the really hard work of selling entitlement reform. Instead, he’s lied about it.

    What he HAS done is foster another Keynesian “infrastructure” plan, which we ALSO know does not work.

    He’s a New York Progressive with SOME rightest leanings. He doesn’t understand…much less have faith in…market economics.

      Close The Fed in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 5:10 pm

      Re: Rags:

      The only point I care to address is the idea that “tariffs cost jobs.”

      The federal government was primarily financed by them before the manipulative income tax was instituted. Between the time of the Revolution and the income tax, the country grew quite fine. Yes, people complained about tariffs, but people ALWAYS complain about paying.

        Ragspierre in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 5:15 pm

        Look up “protectionism”. That’s what we’re talking about.

        Also, a great deal of federal revenue prior to the income tax derived from taxes on alcoholic beverages. Prohibition is directly linked to the income tax.

          Close The Fed in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 6:22 pm

          Like many of us here, I’m well aware of the theory of “protectionism.” The difference is this:

          When I see a theory that does not work as predicted in the real world, I don’t decide that reality is “wrong,” I decide the theory is wrong.

          When we have a theory of “protectionism” that means the steel belt turns into the rust belt, it means that theory is faulty in application. If a theory is wrong, I don’t cling to it until all my fellow Americans are jobless and impoverished to the level of the poorest in Calcutta.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 7:43 pm

          So, instead of acknowleging that your “tariffs” bullshit was just false history, now you’re denying reality.

          EVERY U.S. tariff causes U.S. job losses, AND it a redistributive tax FROM Americans generally to a “protected” special interest.

          It’s just Econ. 101. AND it’s corrupt.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 8:31 pm

          “I don’t cling to it until all my fellow Americans are jobless and impoverished to the level of the poorest in Calcutta.”

          That qualifies you as literally insane.

          Wholly shit…!!!

Trump learned that trick from Sarah Palin.

BTW, I think Canadian is key to the next terrorist threats training grounds coming our way. Between Toronto and the Detroit connection, Canadian is a key gateway to the US.

Only thing saving us are a few good Hosers.

Eh, watch a little of Bob and Doug McKenzie and learn some Canadian History…../s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Doug_McKenzie

5% of all Toronto population is Muslims, making Toronto the highest concentration of Muslims in any city in the US or Canada

https://www.soundvision.com/article/profile-of-muslims-in-canada

And near Detroit:

Dearborn is a microcosm of the Middle East planted in the Midwestern United States. The roughly 40,000 Arab Americans of Dearborn (out of 100,000 total residents) defy the myth many Americans hold of a unified Muslim world. While there are some radical Islamists, Dearborn’s growing Muslim population runs the gamut from international traders to educated professionals to local business owners. Every Arab nationality and religious sect is found in Dearborn, from Yemeni traditionalists to secular modernists.

    Close The Fed in reply to MarkSmith. | June 6, 2018 at 5:15 pm

    Dear Mr. Smith:

    Your paragraph I presume is cut and pasted so I won’t attribute it’s downgrading of the threat from Dearborn muslims to you, especially since it would contradict your earlier posting.

    We all know there’s already an FGM prosecution in Michigan, so no matter how “moderate” they’re still don’t hold American values and certainly not American culture.

      MarkSmith in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 5:38 pm

      Sorry about that. It is a cut and paste. Here is the link:

      https://www.planetizen.com/node/11375

      FGM has not just a problem in Dearborn but a problem worldwide.

      On the same note, I question the need for Circumcision. I know there is a medical benefit for it, but much of the need for it are problems associated with it are moral nature sex.

      I know FMG messes up the sensations of the women and circumcision does not mess up the sensations of the man. I still question it practice and think it is unnecessary.

        Close The Fed in reply to MarkSmith. | June 6, 2018 at 6:19 pm

        The point isn’t that muslims are a problem to others and themselves worldwide; the point is that we didn’t have this FGM problem in the U.S.A. until we permitted the pedophile religion in our country.

          MarkSmith in reply to Close The Fed. | June 6, 2018 at 6:30 pm

          In a nutshell, isn’t the the general problem with immigration (illegal be it). The previous generations including my families was all about assimilation into the American culture (ie speak English, you are in America as my grandfather use to say).

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | June 7, 2018 at 2:12 am

          German Americans didn’t feel that way until WW1.

          MarkSmith in reply to Close The Fed. | June 7, 2018 at 10:30 am

          Assimilation was not really required for a lot of the Germans because they moved to very rural areas to start farms and the groups that moved brought their eco system with them. One side of my family can in mid 1800’s. Huge areas of the mid west were areas that the government sold land to the immigrants. It was interesting to seen my great-great grandfathers deed to his 40 acre property from the government. Right from the start they were buying from the US Government land.

          That is why you will find towns like Westphalia, Frankenmuth or Germantown.

          Your right about losing their identity during WWI and WWII. With many Germans being here for over two or three generations, they were already assimilated and wanted to distance themselves from the European conflicts.

          http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Du-Ha/German-Americans.html

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | June 7, 2018 at 12:19 pm

          That is precisely my point. You claimed that the previous generations were all about assimilation, and this is something we ought to demand from current immigrants. But the fact is that for centuries German Americans did not assimilate; they lived happily in their colonies, speaking German to each other, until the pressures of WW1 forced them to learn English and assimilate.

          Ragspierre in reply to Close The Fed. | June 7, 2018 at 1:03 pm

          In my late teens, I used to go to New Braunfels in Texas. The ice houses had a lot of old guys speaking German.

    Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | June 7, 2018 at 2:03 am

    Hang on, if Toronto is only 5% Moslem, and Dearborn is 40% Arab, the vast majority of whom are surely Moslem, then how can Toronto have the highest concentration of Moslems in any city in the US or Canada?

healthguyfsu | June 6, 2018 at 5:28 pm

Time to watch Canadian Bacon again.

    MarkSmith in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 6, 2018 at 6:31 pm

    Never saw it but will put it on my watch list. An a fan of Michael Moore, but might be one of his better movies.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 6, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    “I’ll tell ya another thing: their beer sucks!”

    MarkSmith in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 6, 2018 at 10:34 pm

    Impressive cast. Weak movie. I would take Doctor Strangelove over it any day. Probably Moore’s best, though and fitting for the moment.

    Can’t stand Alan Alda. Love Steven Wright. Worst Nightmare – ha.

      MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | June 6, 2018 at 10:46 pm

      Does bring back my coming of age love for Canada’s Windsor Ballet. Such a beautiful show.

      MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | June 7, 2018 at 10:36 am

      So Moore stole from Doctor Stranglove and Blazing Saddles. Sorry I wasted my time on this movie. Great concept, idiot director with no original thought. What a was of good talent. Peter Seller and Mel Brooks, they are two greats!

“Party like it is 1773” sure allowed the MSM and others to display their keen historical knowledge.

Parody folk bands always speak the truth. From the Arrogant Worms, a CANADIAN group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QET4x2CzDOQ

On the oft-used metaphor that trade wars are like each side stabbing itself to death.

The volume of blood in an average human is 9-12 pints.

If Team America has 12 pints and Team Canada has 9 pints, how strong is Canada’s position?

Humans slip into unconsciousness if they lose approx 33% of blood

Let’s do the math, after 3 stabbings

America. 12-3 = 9, a loss of 25%
Canada. 9-3 = 6, a loss of 33%

Result: Canada taps out in Round 3

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 6, 2018 at 8:12 pm

    Another of your bloody fantasies. And really, to what end…???

      Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2018 at 9:47 pm

      No need to be angry – it’s your side of the debate that introduced the self-stabbibg metaphor to begin with (Milhouse, I believe).

      I’m just extending it to show where it’s weak. Dure, it’s simplistic, but again – your metaphor, not mine.

      So I think Canada will talk smack but eventually cave and renegotiate a trade deal that is better for America. Because they don’t have enough chips to bluff and go all in against us

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 7, 2018 at 6:21 am

        Angry? Another delusion, I guess.

        Here, try this…

        Normally we have two eyes. If you pluck them out out of spite, are you blind?

        My position is that we should carefully guard our vision.

          Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 6:37 am

          You’re not listening. In your analogy, we still have more eyes than they do. If they keep at it, they will be blinded we won’t.

          Put up: If Canada folds on tarrifs to renegotiate a trade deal more favorable to America, you’ll leave this site.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 6:46 am

          You’re right. I’m not listening.

          The T-rumpian tariffs are stupid, wrong, based on a lie, and counter-productive. They are also anti-liberty BIG GOVERNMENT exercises in Progressive, Bernie Sanders ideology.

          All true. Whatever Canada does.

          Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 6:57 am

          “…with Canada, Mexico, and Europe, we are trying to leverage what we can to get the best deal possible,” Thaler told The Daily Signal. “In the case of trade, our most valuable strategic asset is our consumer. We are the largest customer for practically every [other country’s exports] on the earth. … I wouldn’t expect a long-term trade war with Canada or Mexico, or Europe.”

          https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/06/4-key-points-in-the-tariffs-debate-as-trump-prepares-for-g-7-summit/

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 7:01 am

          I don’t see anything refuting what I’ve truthfully asserted.

          You can post broke-dick opinions off point all day.

          Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 7:04 am

          Hang on, if you’re so confident in your opposition to Trump, why are you backing down?

          Here it is again: Put up or shut up. If Canada folds on tarrifs to renegotiate a trade deal more favorable to America, you’ll leave this site?

          Yes or no.

          You want some time to talk it over with the experts who had Hillary at 85% to win? No prob. I’ll be right here waiting…

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 7:08 am

          Explain how this is not a personal attack.

          Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 8:49 am

          First paragraph I’m challenging you to bet something tangible in support of your position, to show everyone else that you’re not as confident in your argument as you appear.

          Last paragraph I’m reminding you just how recently the experts were all so horribly wrong about Trump.

          Where are you seeing a personal attack?

          (and that’s twice you’ve avoided betting your position)

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 1:16 am

      “And really, to what end…???”

      It’s a rather simple explanation that the USA holds the cards and Canada will eventually cave. They have no choice. The party is over, no more freebies. They will have to compete fairly or we’ll use their tactics.

      It’s really not very hard to understand.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | June 7, 2018 at 4:39 am

        “It’s a rather simple explanation that the USA holds the cards and Canada will eventually cave. They have no choice.”

        Sure they do, just like in the 30s with our stupid, destructive tariffs. Canada and the rest of the world had choices, and they took them.

        See the spiral in the chart embedded here…
        http://media.economist.com/images/20081220/CXM946.gif

          Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 6:44 am

          This is not the 30s. It’s almost a century later, many variables have changed and many have been added that didn’t exist before.

          You’re standing on the deck of the Yamato still thinking that Battleships reign supreme

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 6:50 am

          Why so angry?

          And why the weird capitalization?

          Take a few minutes and explicate how things are different. That’ll be fun!

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 12:53 pm

          “See the spiral”

          I looked at your little spider, saw nothing that proves anything other than the world spiraled into depression which began well before any tariffs.

          You simply cannot prove tariffs had anything to with the depression, only appeals to “authority”. A common fallacy, one you repeat ad nauseam. The “authority’s” have a track record of being wrong more often than weathermen.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 1:05 pm

          You cannot comprehend cause>effect relationships, and will deny reality in service to your religion.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 2:21 pm

          You cannot comprehend correlation does not equal causation, and will deny reality in service to your religion.

          You cannot provide any proof of your assertions.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 2:31 pm

          Sure I can, and I have.

          A U.S. depression doesn’t cause a world-wide depression on its own.

          It takes the BIG GOVERNMENT screwing with the entire economy to do that.

          At the time, pretty much everyone who knew anything about economics begged Herbert Hoover to veto Smoot-Hawley.

          Why? Because they understood cause and effect. You can’t or won’t.

          What followed was a tit-for-tat trade war that both deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. I caused world-wide human misery and death.

          That’s what you support.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 8:01 pm

          No, I support free trade, practiced by both parties to the trade, something we do not have.

          You support being a sucker.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 8:36 pm

          No. What you support is quite the contrary.

          Conservatives have no trouble identifying the mass deaths attributed to Collectivism.

          Progressivism is just one of the Collectivist cousins. The stupid policies of the Depression Era killed people and reduced masses of others to groaning misery.

          You support these. This is who you are.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 8, 2018 at 1:35 am

          You support the USA being suckers in international trade.

          I support free trade. That requires both sides. When the other side agrees to lower their tariffs, we’ll be happy to reciprocate. This is how you approach a free trade deal, not by selling out your country.

          You’re getting ready to learn how it works and soon.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 8, 2018 at 4:00 am

          The U.S. is not some stupid team. It consists of a free people, who do not support a bully telling them who they may and may not trade with, especially when his illegal market distortions are based on lies.

          You are about to learn this. Liberty is a value. Truth is a value.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 9, 2018 at 11:58 am

          As I said,
          “You’re getting ready to learn how it works and soon.”

          Donald Trump Calls for Total Tariff Removals at G7 Summit

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/09/donald-trump-calls-for-total-tariff-removals-at-g7/

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 10, 2018 at 7:19 am

          “That’s the way it should be, no tariffs, no barriers … and no subsidies,” Trump said, referring to his former college education. “That’s the way you learned at the Wharton school of finance, I mean that would be the ultimate thing.”

          Then, if he held that as a VALUE, he’d act on it. He doesn’t. Not domestically with ethanol, etc., or anywhere else. He’s articulated the same trade policies as Bernie Sanders, over and over. And for years.

Canada proudly teaches that it only went to war against America once (Canadian provinces did not exist in 1776, what is now New Brusnwick was French occupied, and Nova Scotia actually wanted to join in with America but was too disorganized and rejected ) and manged to burn Washington DC to the ground. They btag about it after a few drinks.

    puhiawa in reply to puhiawa. | June 6, 2018 at 7:54 pm

    PS, when I say French occupied, I mean it was occupied by French speaking citizens that did not mix well with the British Americans fomenting the revolution.

Rags: “You can’t refute what I said.”

There’s not point. We went over this not 48 hours ago and you’te back to attacking people for disagreeing.

And, since the mods are deleting threads with personal attacks, which likely includes responses nested within, it becomes the equivalent of drafting a rebuttal and throwing it in the trash.

What I don’t get is how you can compliment LI staff and then turn around and make more tedious work for them. Like thanking the maid for all her hard work and then spraying beer all over the living room rugs. Please have more respect for then.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 7, 2018 at 4:21 am

    I made the very clear point that these stupid tariffs hurt defense by reducing the value of every dollar allocated to defense.

    You can’t deny that.

    The rest of your bullshit is a personal attack.

      Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 6:27 am

      Rags: “I made the very clear point”

      Yes but you also made personal attacks and called people names. You were warned not to do this less than 48 hours ago and you are now ignoring that warning. You’re going to get yourself banned, is that what you want?

      Don’t you think the staff here has better things to do than police you and delete your posts?

      And why would the rest of us bother discussing anything with you when anything nested in your offending post will get removed along with yours?

      Be prepared for waves of “whatever Rags”

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 7, 2018 at 6:36 am

        Oddly, I see another thinly veiled personal attack, and no refutation of of my point on defense.

        I also see my posts in situ. You keep projecting some action or other instead of simply dealing with my points. You can’t.

        You’ve called people names here. Want examples?

          Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 7:20 am

          Not since Kemberlee explained the new rules two days ago. I haven’t even retaliated for the things you called me in this very thread. There’s no point in insulting you back, you’re testing the staff. I’m not going to be anywhere near you when the hammer falls.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 7:26 am

          No. You can’t cite examples, NOR can you refute what I’ve said.

          So much vacancy.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2018 at 12:58 pm

      “I made the very clear point that these stupid tariffs hurt defense by reducing the value of every dollar allocated to defense.”

      It’s not clear whatsoever that the value of the dollar has been reduced.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | June 7, 2018 at 1:09 pm

        That’s a point I’ve never made.

        Steel and aluminum have been made artificially more expensive, so anything incorporating those materials used by the military is more costly. This dilutes the value of every dollar allocated to military purchases.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 7, 2018 at 4:34 am

    BTW, you must address me properly as “Ragspierre”. Show some respect to the mods.

“I don’t blame Trudeau for invoking tariffs on US goods in response to the Trump administration’s tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel. There had to be a response and it was a quick and easy one.”

Isn’t the real problem Chinese material shipped to Canada and sold to the US Canadian?

    Ragspierre in reply to davod. | June 7, 2018 at 1:33 pm

    Please support the idea that Chinese steel is simply passed through Canada.

    From all I can see, every ton of steel is traced from its nation of origin.

    Canada, like the U.S., is a major producer of both steel and aluminum.

“On a serious note, Toronto was virtually a flat mud Swamp then. That doesn’t burn so well.”

Wasn’t Washington built on a swamp?

Hmmmm…. It would seem, I guess, that they are a little unclear as to what a “Declaration of Independence” means.

Canada’s government IS a clear and present danger, not only to America but also to Canadian citizens as well.

Still Report #488 – Is Canada’s New PM a Radical Muslim?
https://youtu.be/SbRLqUDQnYE

… pretty much explains this:
INSANITY: Trudeau Government Giving “Reintegration Support” To Former ISIS Fighters Instead Of Arresting Or Eliminating Them

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/11/17/insanit

Still Report #589 – Canada: Muslims Get All Expenses Paid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN0HS9fNNiI

Count is 2-0. Rags bracing for the pitch. Fen lofts a underhand hanger

“Rags, if you’re so confident in your opposition to Trump, why are you backing down? Put up or shut up. If Canada folds on tarrifs to renegotiate a trade deal more favorable to America, you’ll leave this site?”

Fen doesn’t even wait for the swing and miss. Turns and heads to the dugout. That’s the inning, folks.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | June 7, 2018 at 8:27 pm

    f’en mounts another personal attack, while pretending he’s honoring the mod’s rules.

    Of course, he isn’t, can’t, and won’t.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend