this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
9 points (73.7% liked)

Canada

9424 readers
1075 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago

Why would you try.

Also, treat hime like he treats you. Just lie to him and never do it. If he ever complains, just say it never happened. Lie to him again to get whatever concessions you want. Repeat.

Treat clowns like clowns.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 24 points 1 day ago

Nope, because he'll just move on to the next lame excuse. He's so ethically challenged that he won't even stay bought.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

They should do it if they think it's necessary and not just to satisfly trump

[–] MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago

Mango Mussolini will never be satisfied.

[–] thehowlingnorth@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

Can we agree on a reasonable deal?

Sure.

Will it ever satisfy Dingus?

Nope.

[–] gorillaNdaMist@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

I think we moved on from trying to satisfy Trump or americans. Actually, a lot of us are tying to disatisfy them.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

I'm going to say no.

Trump won't settle for anything other than everyone else paying for everything. That's his MO in everything -- from not paying for campaign stops, stiffing contractors, to ever increasing nato targets.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say:–
"We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:–
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:–

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

- Rudyard Kipling

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The target has already been moved from 2% of GDP to 5%. With the expectation that most of that money would be spent on procurement from the US. If we accept the shakedown, why wouldn't it happen again?

Even the US, with their absurdly bloated military, only spends 3.4% of their GDP.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

It's best to presume that anything done won't satisfy him, but instead to give him just enough that he can claim some sort of victory and walk away from the entire issue. Just flatter him and tell him that the increased NATO spending is all because of him, despite the fact that in reality is has nothing to do with him or even the US.

Then do what's best for the rest of NATO, presuming that the US won't be helping, and may even hinder at inopportune times.