You do realize that a city changing the name of something is vastly different than a country changing the name of international waters and shared territory with several other countries...I wonder where he gets these hairbrained ideas from.
Becoming Sankofa Square — Sankofa Square (formerly Yonge-Dundas Square)
www.sankofasquare.ca
Trump promise: Gulf of Mexico is to be renamed Gulf of America
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
This is exactly what he's doing. He floods the zone with his deranged bullshit to distract the press and everyone else from stuff like his judge not allowing the prosecutors to release details on his stolen documents case. Or his unqualified cabinet. Or some other crap we haven't found out about yet. This, like many of his stupid bullshit will be forgotten in a few weeks...
Has anyone been following Jr's Earth shattering trip to Greenland? He got snowblind and asked, "take me to your dealer".
Every country can label it's maps of the world any way they like. Always could, and have.
Considering how many trolls inhabit this forum, it's amazing that they can't recognize trolling when they see it.
Considering how many trolls inhabit this forum, it's amazing that they can't recognize trolling when they see it.
What country doesn't have the power to put whatever labels it wants on a map?
Things go renamed every year prior to later half of twentieth century. This is just getting back to how it was. The strongest nation gets naming rights.
Outside of government communications, he would have no power whatsoever. He cannot force publishers to use "Gulf of America" in their books or cartographers to label the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America" on their maps.
Whoever pays a publisher to produce a book can require it to be published with whatever labels they wish. This is pretty basic stuff. Also, governments are often the publishers of maps. What makes you think they can`t publish in any form they want.
If Americans agree with him on this, they won't care what others call the gulf....they simply will call it Gulf of America if they want to...on the US water column.
Would it be ok for Biden to say the same thing?
not playing devil's advocate, genuinely curious if you think it's ok for a president to troll around and say things like annexing an ally.
Trump is trying to address some trade inequities as well as the loss of middle class manufacturing jobs from the American economy. His chief targets on these issues are Mexico and China, however Canada can't be ignored in the discussion because we have the same free trade agreement as Mexico.
In a negotiation about these issues, any tactic to bring attention to the issues is a step toward a serious negotiation. Trump is merely trying to get Mexico's attention with this geography trolling. It's a preamble to serious restructuring of the trade relationship between those countries. If Canada's leadership had any brains, they would get ON BOARD with crafting changes which, on the surface would have equal application to Canada and Mexico, but in practice would alter the trade relationship in Canada's favour. In any 3 way negotiation you want to get on the winning majority, not the losing minority. This appears to be lost on the Trudeau government.
yea I'm not convinced that bringing up the topic of annexing Canada and Greenland into the discussion of American manufacturing is helpful whatsoever. IMO his negotiation on the USMCA was done quite well and annexation was never brought up, so why troll and bring it up now?
At a time when certain countries are looking to disrupt the world order, is now really a good time to question the NATO alliance and the sovereignty of its members?
Last edited:
You are mixing up the issues.
The "Gulf of America" quip is prologue to discussions with Mexico about their trade, drug and human trafficking, and border security relationship. It's a rather tidy way of reminding Mexico how much they rely on the US and just how fair the US is about tolerating Mexico's shortcomings in their relationship.
The Canada comments were purposed differently. Trump had a problem with Trudeau as someone who was offside with most of his agenda. To some degree, demeaning him as a state governor was a way of reminding Trudeau he's the tail, not the dog. Trade issues with Canada are not as substantial as with Mexico, but by inviting Canada into the conversation first, it gives Canada a chance to control the agenda of any reworking, as whatever is worked out with Canada, the Mexicans will simply have to accept. Inviting Canada to see the benefits of joining the US isn't/wasn't a joke, but that gambit was again, laid out to bait the Liberals into exposing themselves as the enemies of our greatest trading and geopolitical partner and open the door to the Conservatives to brand themselves as well aligned with our greatest ally and partner. And, lo and behold, it seems to have had some effect.
Greenland is different again. Greenland is a serious business and geopolitical proposal. Denmark may not bite, but at the right price they ought to. The resources of Greenland would be much more effectively developed under American stewardship. Control of Greenland allows the US to install military security that the Danes never could (or would). Such a deal, at the right price, would be good for everyone. Denmark might even negotiate a NATO contribution holiday to offset some/all of the purchase price. That would resolve several issues at once. However, just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it will happen. It will be up to Denmark completely, but don't be surprised if they act all offended and give a "no at any price" response that they will be put under a lot of pressure to live up to their NATO commitments, which they currently do not.
None of these initiatives are a challenge to the sovereignty of any of the 3 countries. Only morons entertain that thought. However, in a world of autonomous, sovereign nations there are differences in bargaining power when it comes to national relationships. Little dogs can act like big dogs, but generally speaking such countries end up looking like rogue, unreliable and unreasonable geopolitical and trade partners, and end up on the outside looking in at productive trade and military alliances. The trick is to know who you are, know your strengths and weaknesses, and capitalize on your strengths so that you are perceived as a VALUED partner, rather than insisting that you are an EQUAL partner (when you aren't).
Last edited:
I may have missed some news recently but besides Danielle Smith, it seems like the conservatives and libs have similar if not exact same messaging against Trump with Pierre and Doug speaking out? and a month ago, I recall the issue was about border security hence Smith's investment for a new sheriff border patrol. This is the first time I'm hearing about trade issues being raised again (even though Trump's USMCA is up for reneg next year)
Not sure where libs are exposing themselves and cons rebranding.
