The Canadian government has insisted that information on domestic goods is readily available to all trading partners, even including nations that recently elected a felony-convicted game show host to be their head of state. Instead, the United States has decided to employ a rarely-chosen trade tactic that international economists refer to as the “fuck around and find out” model.
I suppose that’s a fair point. It comes down to perception I guess. Maybe it’s best described as “some” Americans chose this.
The headline is just vaguely misleading enough to fuel the anti-American ideology even further. Because as we’ve seen right here on lemmy, there are people stupid enough to believe that the entire country supports everything that criminal does.
The scores of “don’t blame me / don’t blame all of us” comments ring hollow.
If Americans want to convince Canadians that they don’t want what the person elected to represent them wants then I expect to see “support Canada” rallies in every democrat-leaning city across the country.
Even if it did absolutely nothing to solve the problem it would at least fill me with a hope that a few people actually give a damn.
It’s the exact same thing as saying Americans voted in Obama, it’s not meant to be a statement that’s correct for every individual.
Oh I know, I’d probably take issue with that as well. I just hate blanket statements.
You hate all blanket statements?
As I said earlier, I believe blanket systems should be called out when they’re wrong. Maybe you missed that part.
But isn’t the problem is that all blanket statements are wrong?
I mean there will always be an exception.
I get that you love arguing. You’re pretty notorious for it. But unfortunately, I’m not going to fall for that shit.
It’s very clear for anyone to easily understand exactly what I am saying and with all due respect, I’m not going to get caught up in some derailment of the discount because you feel the need to lead me into one of your “gotcha” moments.
Blanket statements issued for the purpose of misleading people, or injecting a bias into the topic should be called out. That is what I said- that is what I meant.
I am not arguing semantics.