Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in reductio ad absurdum 158 Comments

 
 

The Burrard Street Journal is reporting that

DONALD J. Trump believes the U.S. “should never have allowed” Canada to gain independence. The republican candidate for president freely admits to being “a little rusty” on Canadian history, but feels confident that the United States owned Canada “at some point”, and claims giving it back was a “major mistake”.

The former reality tv star was responding to a question about Puerto Rico possibly becoming the 51st of the United States, when he made the statement. “It used to be 51 you know, when we had Canada,” Trump said, pointing to an American flag, “Or 52 if you count Mexico which I never will, no matter how much they beg.”

The interviewer Brian Kilmeade, seemed unmoved by Trump’s remark and asked him to explain his understanding of Canadian/American history, as the Fox host began scribbling notes:

“I personally think it was the biggest mistake in American history, giving Canada back. Look at that place now, it’s falling to pieces. It’s overrun by godless, gunless hippies and it’s such a shame to see.”

As the host nodded along, Trump explained that America got a “terrible deal” with Canada who “stole” the land over a thousand years ago “or something like that”.

“It was a truly awful deal. Canada gets Toronto and Vancouver, which has the hottest women, and what did we get? Alaska? The Florida of Canada? Such a terrible deal.”

“Well what are you going to do if elected?” Kilmeade asked. “Forcefully take Canada and claim it as part of America?”

“I think that’s gotta be an option,” Trump responded. “You know, they’ve got a lot of oil up there, a lot.”

“I’m not sure there is any evidence to support this theory, Donald,” Kilmeade intervened. “I mean wasn’t Canada founded by Britain and France who invaded–” “No, are you kidding me?” Trump interrupted. “You think that either of those guys know the first thing about war? No Canada has belonged to America since Jesus’ time, and that’s a fact.”

Shortly after the controversial interview, Trump reiterated his stance towards Canada with a tweet that was deleted 20 minutes later, not before being retweeted over 6,000 times.

 
 


 

158 thoughts on “Trump Claims America Should Never Have Given Canada Its Independence”

  1. Oops I should have said American Expatriates not Americans Abroad when referencing Keith Redmond.

    @petros, I didn’t get the impression from reading at that group’s Facebook page that Keith’s moderating was out of concern for exposing the defective personalities of American politicians but rather to prevent the same kind of divisiveness exhibited by the reaction to this post and to stay focused on common goals.

  4. Heidi wrote: “Satire is a powerful tool when used wisely and for a purpose. What was he purpose of this post in respect of Brock ?”

    Reductio ad absurdum, of which satire is a form, is a powerful rhetorical tool for exposing the tendencies and weaknesses of a viewpoint. Trump will become the next persecutor in chief of so-called US citizens abroad. This post exposes his Homelander provincialism and was perfectly believable. While Trump never said these things, he has indeed said much worse.

  5. @Petros
    Yes, I agree, he has said much worse, but as far as I recall, he has said nothing in relation to the causes of Brock, we have to wait and see.

  6. “Trump’s history of legal actions provides clues about his style as a leader and manager. While he is quick to take credit for anything associated with his name, he is just as quick to distance himself from failures and to place responsibility on others. In one lawsuit — filed against him by condo owners who wanted their money back for a Fort Lauderdale condo that was never built — he testified in a sworn deposition: “Well, the word ‘developing,’ it doesn’t mean that we’re the developers.””

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

    The Republican platform is not Trump’s promises.

    Trump is entirely untrustworthy–so say hundreds of plaintiffs.

  7. Trump likes to talk about Crooked Hillary. While he may not be inclined to hold high planks of the Republican platform (such as repeal FATCA and change to CBT), Trump likes to tell stories about Crooked Hillary. So how might we get him to tell the story how she intervened to help tax cheat “fatcat mates and their overseas accounts in the “UBS Affair while burdening every day US persons overseas with FATCA and its consequences?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/272396-the-clintons-and-the-sordid-ubs-affair

  8. Re @George, the Canadian suit will definitely help highlight the injustices and that can only be a good thing for US persons overseas. Already lots came out in the Summary Trial. Once the real trial gets started even more will come out. One may only hope that this influences policy makers in the US. At least the Canadian suit should help grow the community of the informed and outraged to better fund the lawsuits including ADCT.

  11. The USA election is not a question of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is more like choosing between Satan and Lucifer; or hemlock and arsenic: pick your poison.

  12. I wonder if Trump will still claim the election is rigged if he get elected? You see it doesn’t matter whether what he says is true or not, it’s the effect of his statement that matters.

    That’s the evil genius of Donald Trump.

  13. @George

    Re: “Someone who knows more about US politics than I do might answer this:
    Do the Republicans not control Congress? If so, why has Congress not done more to follow the RNC platform of FATCA repeal & switch to RBT? (Because President Obama would veto it?)”

    As someone who fits that description, allow me to elucidate. Yes, of course Obama would veto, but more to the point, NOBODY IN WASHINGTON DC KNOWS WHAT FATCA IS OR GIVES A DAMN ABOUT IT except for the handful of legislators who slipped it in and the bureaucrats who duly enforce it. To expect Trump (or for that matter, Hillary) to show they really, really, personally care is absurd. Ditto with CBT/RBT. (As for “”, good grief, that platform is two weeks old and nothing gets done in an election year anyway. Besides, with no a dime being spent on lobbying and PR to educate Washington on FATCA and RBT, how much attention should you expect?)

    Re the platforms, see my commentary below from The National Interest, today. In sum, expats have a written, specific commitment from one party on FATCA and RBT, and from the other a vague maybe on FATCA and zip on RBT. As I say, that’s a no-brainer.

    The question for expats now is not what else Trump (or Hillary) can say or do to make anyone believe he (she) cares. It whether on taking office in January 2017 the winner will believe he has anything to deliver to a supportive constituency. Sure, expats can stand aside and say, “Well, yeah, but still not good enough to convince me.” But then don’t complain when FATCA and RBT somehow don’t make the cut in a 2017 GOP tax reform package because it was a promise nobody, especially its intended beneficiaries, seemed to care about. (If Hillary wins, OTOH, I doubt she’s be getting much through the GOP House, and besides she and the Dem platform haven’t promised anything besides more pain.)

    The question for expats is not “Is Trump with us?”, it’s “Are you with him?” If the answer is No, fine. But then don’t complain later.

    See commentary below. (BTW, The National Interest is the flagship for what is called the “realist” school of foreign policy, as opposed to liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. They jumped at publishing something on FATCA. People are starting to notice, but it doesn’t happen all by itself! It takes work!)

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/gop-woos-americans-abroad-democrats-tell-them-get-lost-17208?page=show

    GOP Woos Americans Abroad, Democrats Tell Them to Get Lost

    This tax law is hurting American citizens overseas.

    Jim Jatras

    August 1, 2016

    American citizens who live outside the United States are one of the least visible constituencies in U.S. politics. This is despite the fact that, at up to nine million people, they are more numerous than the populations of all but about a dozen of our fifty states.

    The Obama years have been tough for American expatriates, or “expats.” The prime culprit is the so-called Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Supposedly aimed at “fat cat” tax cheats with money stashed abroad, FATCA includes not a single provision targeting actual tax evasion. Instead, FATCA creates a wholesale NSA-style information dragnet requiring under threat of sanctions, all non-U.S. financial institutions (banks, credit unions, insurance companies, investment and pension funds, etc.) in every country in the world to report to the IRS data on all specified accounts of U.S. persons (but not corporations). No proof or even suspicion of wrongdoing is required.

    Hoping to avoid sanctions threats and crushing compliance costs, institutions around the world have been dumping American clients, making it increasingly difficult for them just to open a checking account and pay their everyday bills. Businesses once eager for our expats’ expertise now shun them because FATCA imposes U.S. regulatory oversight of companies in which Americans exercise signature authority.

    FATCA has thus vastly compounded pressures imposed by earlier laws like Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) and America’s unique worldwide taxation system. (Virtually all other countries impose taxes based on residency, not citizenship). While genuine “fat cat” evaders can easily slip the FATCA net by putting assets into gold, diamonds, art or real estate, middle-class Americans overseas are being smacked with massive penalties for filing deficiencies even when they owe no tax, on top of hefty accountant and attorney fees to navigate an increasingly labyrinthine regime.

    In short, this vital part of “America’s international sales force” is being strangled. It’s hardly surprising then that the number of American expats reluctantly making theheartrending decision to renounce their U.S. citizenship has skyrocketed. The only response from the Obama administration has been to crank up the fees and penalties for doing so.

    In a timely move, the 2016 Republican Platform promises rescue in a clear and unequivocal statement that champions expats’ financial interests and constitutional rights:

    “The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Foreign Bank and Asset Reporting Requirements result in government’s warrantless seizure of personal financial information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Americans overseas should enjoy the same rights as Americans residing in the United States, whose private financial information is not subject to disclosure to the government except as to interest earned. The requirement for all banks around the world to provide detailed information to the IRS about American account holders outside the United States has resulted in banks refusing service to them. Thus, FATCA not only allows ‘unreasonable search and seizures’ but also threatens the ability of overseas Americans to lead normal lives. We call for its repeal and for a change to residency-based taxation for U.S. citizens overseas.”

    Let’s keep in mind that the GOP Platform also proposes a far-reaching and long-overdue overhaul of an American tax system that seems almost designed to stifle enterprise and drive jobs overseas. If Donald Trump wins the presidency, he almost certainly will have a Republican Senate as well as a GOP-led House of Representatives to work with. This means a Trump administration will be in a position to keep its promises on FATCA and residency-based taxation.

    By contrast, what do the Democrats promise expats in their platform? Just more pain and blame, lumping them with presumptive lawbreakers:

    “Democrats believe that no one should be able avoid paying their fair share by hiding money abroad, and that corrupt leaders and terrorists should not be able to use the system of international finance to their advantage. We will work to crack down on tax evasion and promote transparency to fight corruption and terrorism. And we will make sure that law-abiding Americans living abroad are not unfairly penalized by finding the right solutions for them to the requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).”

    Sure, there is a milquetoast hint at “finding the right solutions” for expats. If there is a Hillary Clinton administration, they can file that with “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”

    Despite their formidable numbers, American expats (who vote via their address of domicile back home) are not concentrated in any particular states or congressional districts. It’s thus unlikely they can decisively swing the 2016 race. Nonetheless, the GOP has made a bold and principled play for their support. Democrats have given them the back of their hand.

    If the American expat community wants relief, this is a no-brainer.

    Jim Jatras, a former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership, comments on financial and foreign policy topics and on U.S. politics. He edits http://www.RepealFATCA.com.

  14. This definitely needed to say parody at the end. Parody tends to become viewed as fact with surprising ease. Lots of people “know” that George W. Bush (or Dan Quayle) told a Latin American audience that he couldn’t communicate with them in their native tongue because he didn’t take Latin in school. Lots of people “know” that Sarah Palin called Africa a country. Not true, but the result of parodies that were too subtle. Parody is best left to The Onion, Borowitz or the Daily Mash, where the URL is a giveaway.

  15. After reading Jim Jatras’s comment above, I have even more empathy and understanding regarding George’s concern with this post. In my opinion, George’s reaction was not merely a tempest in a teapot as some have suggested. I hope he comes back to Brock.

  18. it’s partly about the thoughts you put in people’s heads. Thoughts that they don’t even question and then make decisions based on those thoughts.

  19. @Mr. Jatras I understand that CBT/FATCA is in the RNC platform, however, it remains unclear to me if Mr. Trump embraces the entire platform. Is there any avenue to have a dialogue with him regarding this issue?

    You also often speak of needing a lobbying group. How does one go about initiating that?

    (As an aside, I so wish you could have hog-tied Colin Powell and convinced him to run. Yup, I have a crush.)

  20. Charl wrote: “You also often speak of needing a lobbying group. How does one go about initiating that?”

    You have to have money, a lot of it.

  21. but Char do you think Trump is even intelligent enough to bother having such dialogue with? (Note: this was sarcasm in keeping with the flavour of this post)

  23. WhiteKat wrote: @petros, just wondering if you have ever lost an argument? Or does that only happen at home?

    How can one lose an argument when one never engages its main points. Jay has played the victim. Has he won because he has made himself into the pathetic victim of an internet discussion?

  25. @All I think the best way to get Trump’s attention is stories related to FATCA to add to Trump’s theme of Crooked Hillary.

    While Clinton intervened into UBS giving over US resident accounts in Switzerland (stopping revelation of tax cheat accounts), Clinton’s FATCA aims to force revelation of lawful everyday accounts of 9 million US persons overseas. Two sets of rules here: One for Clinton’s mates and one for everyone else at the expense of everyone else, while those mates sparred by Clinton donate generously to the Clinton Foundation.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/272396-the-clintons-and-the-sordid-ubs-affair

    There is truth in @Jim Jatras’s comment. There was news today that Trump was reluctant in endorsing Ryan in his electorate. Wonder why? Ryan was openly vocal about not supporting then reluctantly supporting Trump. In future it will be a story of Trump against the world and part of this might the the recurrent theme of what you person, you group, did for me along the way.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: