It would be a grand historical irony if the country that ultimately ensures Ukraine’s freedom from Russia ends up being Germany.

“We are here to liberate you from the Russians…and this time, we really mean it!”

And this is the problem with “America first.” Those who are the most selfish inevitably find themselves alone and miserable.

There are also antisemitic supporters of Israel. The Christian Nationalists want somewhere to banish the US’s Jewish population to.

YOU do not seem to know how elections work beyond a single cycle. You view each election as singular isolated event, and you have zero perspective of the grander game that’s played between cycles.

What exactly do you think would happen if 100% of Dem voters always “voted blue no matter who?” If every Dem vote is already locked in from day one, what incentive does the party have to do anything to actually represent them? This is why the Dems worked so hard to court Republicans to vote for Harris. They figured that the Dem base was so scared of Trump that their votes were already locked in.

If you want a party to actually represent your beliefs, there have to be some people on your side willing to walk away if the party drifts too far out of line. If no Democratic voters are ever willing to abandon a Democrat for being too conservative, then the Dem candidates will drift further and further right each cycle.

Yes, there’s the idea of democracy being on the line, but when is democracy NOT going to be on the line? And truthfully, the Democratic leaders proved that they were not reliable stewards of Democracy. The party that nominated Garland had zero ability to argue that they would defend democracy. Just look at how limp-wristed the Democrats in Congress have been in responding to Trump’s lawlessness. These people are not capable of defending democracy. Trump should have been thrown in Gitmo on day one of the Biden administration. Instead Biden nominated a Republican to be his attorney general, and the rest is history.

I voted for Harris, but I also recognize the great value of people refusing to vote for a Democratic candidate when they move too far to the right. If there is no consequence for drifting right, the candidates will continue to do so.

The whole “preserve democracy” thing sounds good if you don’t think about it too hard, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The Biden/Harris team proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they weren’t capable of defending democracy. Nominating Garland proved that. The dems pathetic response to Trump’s current lawlessness has proven that.

You can’t “defend democracy” just by saying the words “defend democracy.” You actually have to do it. And they proved that they were either unwilling or incapable of actually defending democracy. That’s why that talking point so fell flat.

I hope you look forward to voting for Ted Cruz, the Democratic candidate for president in 2028. After all, he’ll in theory be a little better than Trump running for his third term, so logically it’s our duty to support Mr. Cruz for president. The only criteria any Democrat is allowed to use is whether the Democratic candidate is a tiny bit better than the Republican.

If you refuse to vote for President Cruz, you will be fully morally responsible for any of Trump’s actions in his third term. After all, there’s no magical third candidate with a prospect of winning.

This is the moral hazard of the “vote blue no matter who” crowd. If the Democratic base is already locked in no matter what, then there’s no need for the party to work to actually reflect Democratic values. The people running the party only care about winning for the sake of winning. They don’t actually believe in anything; they’re just shameless power chasers. And if the Dem base will vote for literally anyone the Dems nominate, then Dems might as well just nominate Ted Cruz, Liz Cheney, or some other Republican. What better way to appeal to suburban Republican voters than by nominating an actual Republican?

The truth is that in order for the Democratic Party to actually mean anything, there have to be some people on the left side of the spectrum willing to walk away if the party moves too far to the right. If there’s no consequence to drifting to the right, the party will just become a duplicate of the Republican Party. Eventually we’ll just end up with an election between the KKK candidate and the skinhead candidate. That would literally be the outcome if every Democratic voter blindly “voted blue no matter who.”

Obviously, there’s the argument of voting to defend democracy. But the sad truth is that centrist dems have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actually incapable of defending democracy. You can’t run on something that you’ve proven yourself utterly incapable of doing. The party that appointed Merrick Garland could not credibly argue that they were going to vigorously defend democracy. Even now, their pathetic response to Trump’s lawlessness shows that they are incapable of fighting for democracy.

Bidens suggestion was explicitly about allowing Palestinians to flee into Egypt short term

Just how gullible are you? When has any expulsion or relocation of Palestinians out of a territory ever been temporary? Biden isn’t a complete moron. He would know as well as anyone that there is no such thing as a temporary relocation of Palestinians.

Somewhere, the ghost of de Gaulle is laughing…

This is delusional. Who is going to intervene? With what military? What country has an expeditionary force that can best the US Navy, sail across an ocean, and then confront the US Army and Air Force on America’s home turf? China? They’ve been building up for years with the hope of being able to stand up to the US, in the waters directly off the Chinese coast.

The idea that anyone could invade the US is delusional. Also, the US has 5000 thermonuclear weapons. No one is invading the US mainland. No one is invading mainland China. No one is invading Russia. Big nuclear powers are immune to invasion on their core territory.

Again, it’s easy to tut tut about nuclear bombs. But they sure have done a good job at preventing more world wars between the great powers.

OK, I just looked up the top speed and divided by the distance, but there may be logistics issues that make that impossible. But really, 2 weeks or an afternoon? It makes little difference.

Why not? Denying 41 million a right to vote is a minor crime compared to forcefully conquering a peaceful neighbor that had been your closest neighbor. You’re talking about a conflict that would easily kill 10% of the Canadian population, and likely level every major Canadian city, by the time the resistance efforts were finally stomped out.

He’s saying they would make a 51st state eventually. The US’s client state, Israel, denies the right to vote to nearly half of the population of the areas it controls. And we’re their greatest ally. Why can’t we deny the right to vote to 10% of the people in the territory we control? (Canada’s population would represent about 10% of the combined US-Canadian territory’s population.) Hell, we already disenfranchise millions due to felonies. And we disenfranchise millions through voter purges. And it was only in the 1960s that we stopped outright legally disenfranchising people due to skin color. You’re seriously trying to argue that a fascist government would have moral qualms about disenfranchising large numbers of people!

The US could quite easily even go far as to say, “all Canadian citizens in the occupied territories are resident aliens and will not have the right to citizenship. Their kids will have citizenship, but no one who has ever held Canadian citizenship will get US voting rights.” Every Canadian currently alive simply never gets to vote.

This is entirely possible. A right wing authoritarian government is not stupid. They’re not going to immediately grant voting rights to people that will immediately vote them out of office. The only way they would do that is if they were confident that elections were so utterly corrupted that giving Canadian’s American citizenship wouldn’t change the outcome.

That’s a nice and noble idealism, but what evidence do you have for it? Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and look how that turned out for them. There is a reason Zelensky has been pushing so hard for NATO membership. It’s easy to idealistically reject nuclear weapons when you’re a nation that is comfortably protected by the nuclear umbrella of a friendly allied superpower. It’s easy to tut-tut, scoff, and say “bombs do not protect from bombs.” But I have yet to see a nuclear-armed nation ever face an existential threat of invasion from a hostile outside power. Despite how much you might claim they are useless, nuclear-armed countries sure do tend not to get invaded. Notice how Trump routinely talks about invading Iran, but no one talks about toppling the North Korean regime anymore? Or why haven’t the Western powers come riding to Ukraine’s aid like they did Poland in World War Two? Despite your idealism, as a practical matter, it is not possible to invade and annex a nation that has a nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear weapons, despite how distasteful they are, are the international relations equivalent of “high fences make good neighbors.” Canada has been protected by a nuclear arsenal for generations. But they’ve had the luxury until now of pretending they aren’t.

Canada needs the bomb.

Unfortunately, this is not about what Canada wants. This is about what Canada needs. I do not want Canada to have to build a nuclear arsenal either. Realize, I am advocating for the construction of nuclear weapons that will be pointed at my own head. THAT is fucked up. I do not make this recommendation lightly.

Reality check. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles of the US border. An M1 Abrams tank can drive that distance in an afternoon. The Canadian military is woefully unprepared to resist such an advance. The Canadian military is not designed to resist the might of the US. It’s designed to provide some valuable but niche roles as part of the NATO alliance. And this is not some failure to plan on the part of my Canadian brothers. Frankly, Canada was never going to be able to develop such a capability. Canada has approximately 12% of the population of the US, and a vast territory to defend. Even if Canada become as militaristic as North Korea, Canada simply does not have the resources to develop the capability to militarily resist the US using conventional arms.

Do you think an alliance will save you? NATO membership means nothing in this context. When an outside country invades a NATO member, they can activate Article 5. However, nothing happens automatically. The NATO members then must convene to formulate a response, and any single member can veto the resolution. Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, have fought several armed conflicts while both being NATO members. NATO will not be coming to save you.

The Commonwealth? Could you dust that thing off and appeal to King Charles for aid? I’m sure he’ll send his dearest sympathies, but the redcoats will not be coming to save you this time. Compare the stats of the US Navy to the Royal Navy and let me know how that would go. I’m sure the Royal Navy’s 160 aircraft will be a formidable match for the US Navy’s 2600. We could also look at other military branches. But the disparities would be similar, and the forces of King Charles would have no way to get to Canadian soil. I’m sorry to say, but 1812 was a very long time ago. The forces of King Charles would struggle to resist, with conventional arms, a US invasion of the UK mainland. Realistically, if the UK wanted to offer any meaningful assistance to Canada, it would have to come in the form of thermonuclear weaponry.

What about the EU? Could Canada join the EU? Would that save you? First, it takes years to join the EU. But even if you could waive a magic wand and join tomorrow? The EU does have the population and economy to potentially stand up to the US. But they don’t have the defense sector necessary. There is no vast EU expeditionary army that is going to sail across the Atlantic and go to-to-toe against the US Army and Marines. There is no formidable EU Navy that’s going to serve as a credible threat to the Americans. In time, the EU could build that capability. But we’re talking, extremely optimistically, a decade to spin up that magnitude of a military industrial complex. US army soldiers will be fishing on the northern coast of Nunavut before the EU parliament even passes the budget appropriations.

Could Canadian irregulars resist the advance? Canada is not some war-torn country in the Middle East that has had insurgent fighting going on for decades. There isn’t some vast network of Canadian insurgent groups with the skills and resources to build improvised explosives and knowledgeable of insurgent tactics. There aren’t thousands of guerilla fighters that might credibly slow down a US invasion. How many suicide bombings has Canada had in the last year? Canada is not Iraq or Syria. I have no doubt that a fierce resistance movement would eventually develop after a US invasion. But irregulars would not be able to actually prevent such an invasion.

If Canada wants to actually deter a US invasion, they need to consider a domestic nuclear arsenal now. They should have considered it the moment Trump started talking about annexation. Canada should negotiate with Britain or France to have British or French weapons stationed on Canadian soil. And that would provide a meaningful deterrent while Canada develops their own arsenal.

Now, the French or UK arsenals cannot come close to matching that of the US. Combined they have 500 warheads, while the US has 5,000. But nuclear weapons are the great equalizer of international politics. Even 50 nuclear warheads on Canadian soil would successfully deter any potential US invasion. It would mean that whatever the US might hope to gain from invading Canada would be dwarfed by what the US would lose in the conflict.

Sorry for the long response. But TLDR, Canada is hopelessly outmatched against the US in conventional military forces, and there is no realistic way its allies will be able to defend it using conventional weapons. A nuclear arsenal is the only way for Canada to ensure its survival as a nation against a US gone mad. And I write this as an American.

You’re assuming Canadians will be immediately granted American citizenship and representation. Most likely, Canada would become a US territory like Guam or Puerto Rico, and kept that way for at least a generation.

That’s not enough. They should immediately negotiate an agreement with Britain and France to have British and French nuclear weapons stationed on Canadian soil. Have them there long enough until Canada can acquire their own domestic arsenal.

Canada needs the bomb. It sounds insane, but I am not joking. That is the obvious lesson of the Ukraine war. Canada is already an advanced near-nuclear state. They could have a domestic arsenal within a year or two if they wanted. And borrowing a few nukes from London or Paris in the meantime would provide cover to allow that.

And I say this as an American. I know Canadians may be loathe at the idea of a Canadian nuclear arsenal. But be realistic. It is the only way for Canada to ever be able to credibly deter a direct threat from the US. We can no longer be trusted.

Canada needs the bomb.

That’s an interesting way to lie about history…

Is there silence? I see plenty of comments routinely downvoted to Hell on this topic. People just downvote the dissenting voices and then pretend they don’t exist.

Exactly. The truth is that the current DNC is utterly incapable of actually winning a presidential election, and they have been incapable of it for more than a decade. 2020 was an anomaly; they won only due to covid. Fixating on Gaza will only ensure that the fundamental mistakes aren’t corrected and that Republicans win again in 2028.

Kamala/Biden were already losing before the Palestine conflict started. Palestine did not cause Kamala to lose the election. She could have used Palestine as a signal that she intended to truly strike out in a new direction, but she chose not to do that.

Unfortunately, that kind of radical break from the past was the only hope any Democrat had in 2024. People have this weird view that 2024 is an anomaly. It’s not. 2020 was the anomaly. Trump only lost in 2020 because of covid. If not for covid, Trump would have easily won in 2020.

You might as well be blaming Gaza for the Libertarian party not winning. The existing Democratic party is as nonviable at the presidential level as the Libertarian party is. The current Democratic leadership is fundamentally incapable of winning a national presidential election. They literally are not capable of it. They got lucky in 2020 due to a disaster of historic proportions, but in normal times, they are not capable of wielding a candidate that will win a presidential election.

Only radical change and reform in the DNC can change this. And this is ultimately why scapegoating the handful of people who actually stayed home due to Gaza is counterproductive. If you think Kamala lost in 2024 due to Gaza, you’re going to be sorely, sorely disappointed in 2028 when another DNC centrist fails to win, even when the Gaza issue is no longer on the table.

Kamala didn’t lose because of Palestine. She lost because DNC centrism has been a political dead end since at least 2012. 2020 was the anomaly; Trump only lost because of Covid.

Centrists are just using the Palestine issue as a scapegoat for their own failures. Kamala/Biden was doomed long before Palestine.