Canadians take giant step towards North American Union?

Admittedly, this is a 'first look' in this direction.

A few points that I've observed that may point in that direction.

First is this information, unconfirmed, that Obama sent an election team to Canada a year ago to set up Harpers defeat.

rightwingnews.com...

Next, multiple reports that Trudeau is a 'globalist'. I hope others, more in the know, can cover that issue. However, one would think a 'globalist' would support a North American Union. (Let's face it, Harper's policies/views were very counter to Obama's and obviously political camps in the same area code is far more open to further alignments and goals.)

U.S. intrusion into Canadian elections. I know little of this nor heard/seen anything other than the above link prior to this. However, I am struck by a similarity between this election and the defeat of Diefenbaker in the day. Diefenbaker and JFK were NOT friends whatsoever.
Interestingly, JFK was a Democrat and Diefenbaker a Conservative. Very similar to the Harper-Obama 'differences'.

Just before Diefenbaker's defeat, the Canadian dollar, which had traditionally been higher than the U.S.'s as was Australia's was 'devalued' on international markets. almost immediately, a "Diefenbaker buck", a Monopoly-styled dollars that said, if I recall correctly, 92.5 cents U.S. printed as it's 'value'. This was circulated widely and, as a result, Diefenbaker was defeated.

Fast forward to Harper's era. The lowering and maintaining of the lower oil prices has hurt Canada's economy hugely. Failure to develop secondary and tertiary industries and diversifying the economy had left Canada in it's chosen role of hewer's of wood and drawers of water.

While I don't believe that these deliberately maintained lower oil prices were directed at Canada, it is an interesting potential 'side-benefit' , at the least.

I believe that in all likelihood, had the Canadian economy remained more or less at the same level as prior to the oil price drop Harper would have been re-elected. Just my opinion though.

Then there's the Trudeau factor. In the U.S., the electorate has had it's fill of familial elitism. It is largely done on the right with the Bushes and while a little slower, also fading with the Clintons on the left.

There is a long connection between the N.E. ivy league crowd and the McGill types of eastern Canada. Fact. Not much difference, if any.

The Trudeau's fall into that camp as well. Too similar to the U.S. to be completely ignored, methinks.

A lot of loose dots I have connected here, admittedly, yet enough to perhaps indicate a pattern that could lead to a N.A. Union. Maybe not...

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

a reply to: nwtrucker

How will it get that far with Trump in the White House?

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

There's still a ways to go for any republican candidate winning the election.

Critical is this week's house leader issue. If Paul runs. If Paul wins. If Paul can achieve a consensus within the ranks. If Paul can then achieve a consensus with the Republican nominee for a specific platform that resonates with the people...

That's a lot of "IFs".

Otherwise, the left will say, rightly, that the republican nominee can't even get consensus within his own party. How will he be able to run the nation if he can't even do that?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Do you think that scenario would be any different than what the present situation is? Come on, now. The GOP is divided now and will be divided further if Ryan gets the speakership. More fuel for Trump's campaign.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

No. I don't believe it will be divided further.

For Paul to win the House speaker position, he has to be elected. That implies a majority. Does it mean he has a majority on all issues? Of course not.

I'm thinking it will be less divided, not more. An incremental gain, but a gain nonetheless.

Don't leave Carson out of the equation. He has the same basic credential as Trump. Not part of the political mechanism...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Speaker and Presidential candidates are two different situations. Democrats get to vote for speaker, too. Put RINOS and democrats together, and you have Ryan as speaker. At least he is seeking approval from the conservatives, though I doubt he'll listen to them in the end.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Very good point.

a reply to: nwtrucker
PM Trudeau's beliefs on globalization and NAU are largely irrelevant.

The PM doesn't have the legal authority to enter Canada into an EU style system, let alone a North American Union.

So, no, Canada hasn't taken a step anywhere.

Also;

Fast forward to Harper's era. The lowering and maintaining of the lower oil prices has hurt Canada's economy hugely. Failure to develop secondary and tertiary industries and diversifying the economy had left Canada in it's chosen role of hewer's of wood and drawers of water.

This is woefully inaccurate.

Alberta's energy sector dropped from 36.1% to 25.5% of the provincial GDP over the last 'boom cycle'.

And, industry development is under Provincial jurisdiction, not Federal, so, the PM (regardless of who) has very little actual power over it.

Trudeau gets elected and immediately rightwing bloggers start fear mongering that he's out to liquidate Canada.

Uhuh

I don't think so, personally.

Should he even whisper such a radical thought publicly, the outrage would be loud from sea to sea to sea and he would be tarred, feathered and run out of 24 Sussex by hordes of crazed Canucks carrying torches and pitchforks. Poor Sophie and the kids...

a reply to: peck420

I didn't say The Canadian federal gov't had/has anything to do with it. This would, by definition lie outside any Canadian Gov't involvement, at least directly.

If you lived in the west, you'd be aware of the effect that the oil prices have had on the region's economy. Ironically, what manufactured industry left in the east has benefitted from the lower Canadian Dollar via exports.

For argument's sake, lets say there is no 'direct' connection, at this point, between Trudeau and any N.A. Union cabal.

You'd still have a hard time convincing me that that potential hasn't taken a huge leap forward.

Again, this is speculation on my part and you could be spot on in your assessment. Still, I see no 'dots' particularly in your post that discredits that overall goal of a united North America.

Who knows? I sure don't...

a reply to: masqua

I actually hope your right. Believe it or not.

As I said, the dots are loose and far apart.

However, if you don't think the globalist agenda isn't alive and well, including in Canada, then you are in denial, sir.

Some issues lie above partisan politics so spare me your diminutive labels. All it does is raise doubts about your objectivity.

a reply to: nwtrucker

From everything I've read and seen, Canadians feel themselves infinitely superior to US Americans. (as well they probably should). I can't for the life of me imagine Canadians wanting to unite themselves with a country as hopelessly screwed up as the US. And its clearly obvious the extent to which the US society is so degenerate compared to Canada. Canada has very liberal gun laws but they don't have mass killings like Sandy Hook; they don't have societal problems like Ferguson.

Canada wouldn't want to step back into the stone age.

Yeah because Canadians were SO pleased with NAFTA. Political suicide.

a reply to: masqua

I agree.

NAFTA is a four-letter word in Canada.

If Trudeau were to speak of an NAU, he'd be strung up from the highest tree... Unless, of course, it gets quietly slipped in like how they handled the TPP and we all get blind-sided by it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Globalism (Nafta, TPP, etc.) has been the effort of Conservative parties up here, and they're toast for the next 4 years.

All I know is that we've been a country for a couple of centuries less change, but we're a very regional country. The Northwest Territories and Nunavut might join Norway, Alberta might want to join America and Quebec might like to be part of France once again. Newfoundland could go with England or France, depending on who wins out in 'kitchen parties'.

Who knows how such a thing might go down?

But one thing for certain, there's this article up here called the Canadian Constitution and that isn't something any polititian up here is going to call "Just a piece of paper" to be torn up in favour of the American version which, obviously, is causing lots of strife down in the 'Good Ol' US of A'.

Naw... we'll stick with ours. It's worked out pretty good, notwithstanding clauses and all.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If you lived in the west, you'd be aware of the effect that the oil prices have had on the region's economy. Ironically, what manufactured industry left in the east has benefitted from the lower Canadian Dollar via exports.

I live in oil heartland...northern Alberta. We were developing the oil sands before oil broke $40/barrel, we will continue to develop them now, just at a slower pace. We have been through far worse than this.

Ontario's manufacturing has very little to do with the CDN value, contrary to what talking heads declare. They needed a scapegoat, and the dollar is an easy one. Ontario's manufacturing woes are linked to Ontario's stagnant labour productivity. As long as that continues, Ontario's manufacturing will continue to struggle.

For argument's sake, lets say there is no 'direct' connection, at this point, between Trudeau and any N.A. Union cabal.

You'd still have a hard time convincing me that that potential hasn't taken a huge leap forward.

Again, this is speculation on my part and you could be spot on in your assessment. Still, I see no 'dots' particularly in your post that discredits that overall goal of a united North America.

Who knows? I sure don't...

We just had an election that was determined by increased internal unity and a positive outlook on Canada's individual future. That, in and of itself, says that NAU took a massive step back, in Canada's end of things any way.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

You people crack me up. Trump can't get elected and won't do CRAP to stop globalism. He's a crony capitalist loving progressive who outsources his products and imports illegals to work for him.

Trump is never going to be POTUS (thank God for that)

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Not to mention he would have to repeal every single trade agreement we have, and the open borders agreement Rick Perry sealed with the president of Mexico a long time ago.

You people thinking he's the magic bullet are just delusional.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So true what you said.. the shadow gov't, not the real one, is in charge.

a reply to: peck420

Oil isn't the only thing Alberta has got going for it. There's still good beef and some of the most beautiful country in Canada. I spent part of June and July in the mountains around Canmore and Banff this past summer and, going by the throngs of international tourists cramming the area, I'd say there's good money in that as well.

As for Ontario(?), well, I lived here most of my life and if there was ever a rust belt, it's in Hamilton and I lay the blame for the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the GTA directly at the feet of NAFTA, never mind the bust of 2008.

Thanks, Mulrony and Reagan. Tell me, are Irish Eyes still smilin'?