- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
It’s time for Canadians to start referring to California’s governor as the President of California, and refer to California itself as the country of California. Even Californians are now doing that.
Congressman Eric Swalwell, a candidate for Governor of California, recently referred to California as “the greatest country in the world.” CalExit.Now concurs with the substance of that claim. CalExit.Now will continue to advance California sovereignty as the governing framework most capable of delivering outcomes that Californians consistently demand.
Also
SACRAMENTO, Calif., March 12, 2026 /PRNewswire/ – CalExit.Now, the movement advocating for California sovereignty, today released a statement marking a historic shift in statewide public opinion. A recent California poll reports that, for the first time since polling on this question began, a majority of Californians now either strongly support, or do not oppose, pursuing California sovereignty. The combined figure stands at 51 percent.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/calexit-now-announces-majority-support-100000068.html
Who knew Trump took Canadian Bacon (the movie) so seriously.
I’m in California, Canada - please annex us. We can draw up a map of the places you should leave behind. You know, the conservative ones.
The problem being we only have a slightly larger population, so it’d be pretty close to you annexing us. That’s not really the end of the world, TBH, but for many Canadians it would be a dealbreaker. Cutting off the rural bits would help, but not much since they’re rural, and honestly we could use some domestic produce production.
It’s just one of the biggest states in one of the most populous countries.
Hey, California – wake up!!! You do not need to be part of Canada to survive. Your economy is already fifth in the entire world, of all other countries, in GDP. Far ahead of Canada. You would 100% survive and prosper. Once you stop sending you’re hard-earned tax dollars to Washington, but instead fund everything Washington funds with your own tax dollars, you are still billions of dollars ahead. By any measure, California is a lot better off as an independent country than as a US state.
You already have a credible National Guard air and land force that would for the basis of a defense force.
The referendum in 2028 can make or break your future.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., March 12, 2026 /PRNewswire/ – CalExit.Now, the movement advocating for California sovereignty, today released a statement marking a historic shift in statewide public opinion. A recent California poll reports that, for the first time since polling on this question began, a majority of Californians now either strongly support, or do not oppose, pursuing California sovereignty. The combined figure stands at 51 percent.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/calexit-now-announces-majority-support-100000068.html
Convince Oregon and Washington to come too, I want to be able to drive to my new vacation spot.
How can anyone take this article seriously after opening with this clear misinterpretation:
Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated he will return to the bargaining table “when the Americans start being serious.” How much more serious can the Americans be? The Americans have been very serious right from the beginning of Trump’s second term. Trump has constantly repeated 51ST state, governor of Canada statements and now Lake America.
I don’t know how you miss inference “…about a trade deal.” and it not be intentional.
True. I am very serious about thinking my President is a fucking moron for wanting to annex Canada.
Trump Always Chickens Out is a disastrous belief
Only the morons.
It’s one American in particular pushing it, so it’s a bit funny to use plural, but yes, he means it.
The president represents the country.
Yeah, there is that legal fiction, and typical way of looking at things, so it’s not an incorrect phrasing. It’s just kinda funny.
Nah he represents it
400 million people is 400 million distinct people. Nobody could or does represent them; the idea that someone can represent “the will of the people” is propaganda. Same with every other government; they actually just have control.
A leader that is elected by their country, represents it. It’s a collective responsibility.
In Trumps case, he truly represents it, in every way. Selfish, debaucherous, arrogant, can’t take criticism.
A leader that is elected by their country, represents it. It’s a collective responsibility.
Well, that’s basically the propaganda. Says who? God? Physics? Neither. And, elect how? Some countries have proportional representation, which neither the US or Canada do.
At the end of the day, a state is anything that has a monopoly on the use of force. Some allocate political power within themselves through elections (of many massively different kinds), while some do it other ways.
You could say, “okay, elections have nothing to do with it, but we’re still responsible for what we let our governments do”, and there’s a strong argument for that. But, by that measure pretty much everyone sucks everywhere, which you can take however you want.
as article points out: that one person is supported by a whole class of Americans - the billionaires. And those in turn are supported by not insignificant portion of American population. So plural is very apropos here.
Pretty much all buisnesspeople hate the trade war, and trade protectionism in general.
businesspeople differ from billionaires in that they don’t get to impact policies and they don’t run multinationals milking both sides of the border
And 1/3 follow without reservation.
And another 1/3 don’t care what happens.
It’s really just a few of us, but they control the media and military so that sucks.
Even if we came willingly, the Republicans wouldn’t really want another California.
Trump doesn’t seem to get that’s what it would be, though. Except also add a raging insurgency, which would most likely spread.
in the hypothetical case of an annexation there is no way Canada would get statehood. they would be just another puerto rico
Depends on the hypothetical, I guess. We’re already handwaving a lot of things.
Trump is rhetorically pretty specific about it being a new state.
I don’t know about that article, but most of us don’t want to annex Canada. Just a vocal minority and their demagogue jackass are blabbering endlessly about it.
About a third of Americans support Trump and about a third don’t vote. So it’s really only just a third of Americans that are opposed.
The Americans are very much not serious about annexing Canada in fact.
Best to be prepared anyway obviously, but no, the president is just talking shit, for leverage in other ways.
The only way it would work is if a sizable percent of canada wanted to join, and even then, it’s doubtful, although finding an enclave that does support joining the US and then making a provocation to justify it is possible, as Russia did in South Ossentia in Georgia, that part of Moldova, and the Crimea. Or as hitler did in the sudentland in Czechoslovakia.
But that is doubtful, not the least as he’s record unpopular, on the back foot with Iran and inflation, and looks like on old washed up bitch.
He’s still got an approval rate above 30%. A third of Americans don’t vote, so while someone else might get into power sometimes, we need to plan on the US being a sometimes fascist country for the foreseeable future.
And there’s a ratchet effect going on. The crazies do crazy things and the moderates roll back some of it but not all of it. So when the crazies get back in, it ratchets further from the previous time the crazies were in.
As a general rule, when the leaders of a notoriously aggressive superpower next door spend years talking about annexing your country, it’s best to err on the side of caution and take it seriously.
I dont wanna go to worry with the Canadians, they fucking scare me :(
Aww, don’t worry. We like the nice Americans just fine.
Get your gun license. I’m not kidding.
You don’t have to own a gun. Just learn how they work so when push comes to shove, you’ll be ready.
You shouldn’t need a license.
I have lived in countries with and without firearms licensing and I respectfully disagree. At a minimum, pistols need to be regulated.
You absolutely should. We’re talking about tools whose purpose is to destroy and kill.
You’ll learn just how bad the firearms restrictions have gotten in Canada since 2020.
It’s not about the restrictions though. It’s about knowing how to use the guns. And about gun safety.
Nah, the restrictions are pretty severe.
They basically were aiming to ban all semi-auto rifles without saying they wanted to ban semi-autos.
The requirements on those haven’t changed since the 90s. You want people to be ready for a possible guerilla war and basically still ban 15000 models of firearms by name without any reason other than ‘AR-15 bad’ and ‘this rifle looks military even though it is a plinker jam-o-matic in a civilian caliber’. They sent many to Ukraine and they threw the latter in the garbage because of useless they are. They even banned hunting rounds for arbitrary reasons, like single shot rifles from the 1880s and the Weatherby .460 magnum, a big game hunting round, because they banned anything with a muzzle energy of more than 20K joules… Calling it an anti material rifle, which it is woefully suited for. Even banning the .50 BMG, which has never been used in a crime in Canada, was done entirely on some ‘we have moved beyond this as a society’ or ‘weapons of war Canadians don’t need’ even though at this point the world has been regressing back to violent authoritianism at breakneck speeds AND they have done jackshit to counter any rightwing misinformation. Incels are getting worse and worse and they are still pushing for gun laws entirely due to the 1989 shooting done by a proto-incel.
If anything I firmly believe they will discourage the average Canuck from resisting and those that and survive this war will probably have to deal with all manner of issues from the government going forward.
I get your point. And I agree with you. Those bans were not decided on factual information but on emotions.
And we all know the actual crimes aren’t committed with legal weapons anyways. They’re mostly done with guns coming from south of the border.
I think you can learn the skills within our existing legal framework. If I were to introduce someone to firearms that has no prior firearms experience we’d be starting with a 22 or maybe even a pellet gun. Access to currently prohibited weapons to further advance individuals that already possess skills is a completely different topic. This doesn’t even start to address the realities of the role of firearms in modern conflict.
There’s lots of more valuable ways for people to spend their time “preparing” for whatever the future holds for us. If someone thinks that prohibited weapons are the key to survival they can seek training through other means like joining the reserves. Or take an active role in politics and work towards changing the legislation. Or if things are so bad already then break the law and learn/possess those weapons anyway.
with a 22 or maybe even a pellet gun.
Be me - purchases a Kriss Vector .22Lr, shot it once at the range, bought an optic for it, planned to take it out again, government bans it because “it’s a weapon of warfare” and shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement.
Shameless plug, if you’re looking for a Canadian Firearms Community on Lemmy I moderate !ca_firearms_rights@lemmy.halstead.host, the community is always looking for growth!
I wouldn’t condone breaking any laws.
I generally agree with that sentiment. With respect to Canada’s firearms laws I think the legislation we had was decent including the previously available restricted licenses for handguns. I’m not personally and advocate for handguns but I think the requirements for storage, transportation, background checks, etc. allowed those that wanted to pursue the hobby to do so while also maintaining a level of safety for the general public. There’s probably some tweaks to be made and loopholes to close but a decent framework.
I don’t think we’re at this point in Canada but I would condone breaking laws that are amoral or unethical. To take it to an extreme, I support the actions of the resistance fighters that were breaking the laws of nazi Germany. I was intending to convey something more along the lines that if someone believes so strongly that was the only path to keeping themself and their loved ones safe then they have the freewill to act accordingly, they’ll just have to live with the consequences of their actions.
I’m not. I just want to visit to get a break from this bullshit, eat some poutine, and fuck back off to my little corner of this mess.
The title seems to be generating confusion, but the author’s point is that there are billionaire oligarchs (not just Trump, people whose power is not term-limited) pushing to gain control of Canada’s resources. He’s not talking about ordinary Americans nor is he necessarily talking about an invasion or a war.
The playbook here is generally to apply economic pressure with the aim of causing political discontent, while at the same time financing an opposition faction that’s more pliable, like they’re doing against Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
And did in the UK and US.
Sounds like the same play book that is used with great success in Europe currently.
