site banner
ulyssessword  1d ago (text post)   787 thread views

Canada Federal Election 2025

Today is the day!

Poll aggregator: https://338canada.com/

Live results: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So question to people who know Canadian politics better: how much Trump's "51 state" shenanigans mattered? In my opinion - which, me not being a Canadian, together with $5 gives you a cup of coffee - Trudeau was a disaster. It looks like Canadians, however, want more of the same. Is it because they really like what Canada is becoming under Trudeau? Would like to hear opinions from people with good background in Canadian politics, especially Canadians themselves.

how much Trump's "51 state" shenanigans mattered?

Ever seem to notice how the old get into wars the young have to fight, and love excuses to have those wars?

This was a referendum on whether we should fight that war or not.
Naturally, the old love that idea (and in fairness, jingoism with respect to the US is a part of the [Eastern] Canadian identity), and voted accordingly. Since Canada doesn't have any checks and balances against those people running roughshod over the rest of the country, that's all that's needed to win.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and this is one of those times. That said, I hope the East loses this trade war and gets annexed quickly, or Alberta successfully petitions the USG for statehood, so the good people out there/here (and they do exist) don't end up suffering too much under the retaliatory tariffs. The productive, industrialized areas of Ontario voted all against this war anyway (just like they have voted against this government in every post-2015 election) and the Western provinces became even more tilted towards the Cons [their regional interest party] despite Eastern Boomer bluster (even the cities, it's worth noting, with the obvious exception of Vancouver).

All that remains to be seen is what Alberta will do in response- Smith (and to a point, Moe) seem competent enough at this game to get the tariffs reduced on energy, but as far as running an entire country I don't know.

Remember that the part of Canada that defines what Canada is [the East] has effectively no land border with the US (it's 100% dependent on long bridges these days), and the part of Canada that does not define what Canada is [the West] has literally all of the land border. Additionally, remember that each province does more trade with the US than they do with each other. An EU-style state of affairs (with respect to Canada and the US) is economically the correct one, something we were closer to at one time (before 9/11), and to a point where we've been headed all this time (especially given NAFTA; the way you stop your best and brightest running away is to become a part of that country yourself) but the US needs to control our immigration policy for that to work. And I'm OK with that given how it's been abused already.

Annexing Canada would be a disaster for US politics. We'd get a large influx of left-leaning population who are already culturally desensitized to the right's worst nightmares (no weapons, no free speech, rampant multiculturalism, full DEI, nationalized medicine, etc.), which would essentially make it California-but-Cold and ensure permanent domination of Democrats in both House and Senate, and probably enough to also ensure Presidency goes to Democrats permanently. I don't think getting a dozen or so of heroic truckers and whoever else on the right side that is in Canada is going to change that. So I don't think anybody entertains this as a serious possibility. If we're talking about piecemeal arrangement, it might be less of a disaster but I don't think it's possible to pull it off in 3 years.

ensure permanent domination

Not how politics work. It’s never over. The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.

It has been over in Europe for a long time, for the right. True, there's AfD in Germany (shut out of "polite society" but still alive) and LePen (here the establishment succeeded to do the same they failed to do to Trump) but there's no movements comparable to MAGA (or even Tea Party) and no powers comparable to Republicans on the right in Europe. I don't see why America must be any different and why, if the circumstances allow, Republicans couldn't be turned into AfD-like permanent opposition, useful for scaring the voters into compliance but powerless otherwise. Of course, there still be politicians competing, just like there are politicians competing in San Francisco or Chicago, but that would be like watching which Politburo member is elected into the Central Committee - whoever it is, it's still a Politburo member. There's no real alternative.

The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.

I hate this attitude to politics (as I have written elsewhere on the web many times). It treats it like modern professional sports, where you pick your "team," and all that you care about is how often your team "wins." It treats "[insert party here] wins elections" as a terminal goal, rather than an instrumental goal.

I do not care that the Republican party would "maintaining equal winning chances" if it has to move leftward to do so. Because what I care about is where we are (and which way we are moving) on the political spectrum. I care about "my party winning" as an instrumental goal, as a means to that end.

"The entire political spectrum moving left" is a long-term loss for the right, regardless of whether or not some body called the "Republican party" wins or loses elections.

It was not a value judgment. Those who keep predicting this upcoming 'permanent democratic party domination' are simply wrong, because of the mechanism I described. I did not say it was not a loss for the right. I understand a lot of you people are chronically depressed pessimistic, but let's keep that black-tinted perspective in focus at least.

Not how politics work. It’s never over.

England has not had significant influence over American politics since, depending on one's accounting, either 1776 or 1812. Likewise, the Romanov dynasty ceased all significant contribution to Russian politics in 1918. The Japanese ended native Japanese Christianity in the 1600s, and it stayed ended for about three centuries. The 101st airborne marched into the south and ended segregation at bayonet-point, and at least that form of it did in fact stay ended right down to the present day.

Sometimes the show does not, in fact, go on. If you've noted that all of these examples involved mass-bloodshed, and most of them involved the sort of mass bloodshed we can't really even attempt to put a smiley-face on, well, that'd be why I'm generally a pessimist.

Eh, we did end up developing the Special Relationship. There’s no country on earth with a better track record of influencing American opinion.

My mid-1800s history is a bit rustier, but I understand slave economics were rather entangled with the British market, since textile industrialization was in full swing. The Confederates were certainly hoping for more direct support from their trade partners.

Sure, but if you graph political influence over time, I'm pretty sure by far the biggest change on the graph is 1776, and everything else is inconsequential. And notably, that's the one you can mostly put a smiley-face on.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats