Alright, you want to talk line by line, we'll talk line by line. Before we begin, let's just put a blanket statement over how poorly you support your argument: All you are doing is showing how head-in-the-sand you are.

> This talking head guy is just saying stuff to make you angry and click his videos.

This is obviously false, and I could easily say the same thing about you and your sources, except you haven't provided any.

> Editing together a montage of clickbait/ragebait headlines from left-liberal media outlets and talking over it isn't an argument.

Blanket denial sprinkled with lies isn't an argument either. He at least explains why he thinks something, provides support for his position and is willing to admit he's wrong.

> Still allies. Not a former ally. First lie of the video.

If you continue deny that our relationship is becoming strained, given Ontario just put 25% tax increase on electricity exported to the US, and we've countered by upping the tariffs to 50% as of an hour ago, I'm just going to tell you to go back to 8kun.

Furthermore, you seem to be working a very specific (and given your previous behavior), weasel-y definition of 'ally' that I'm not interested in arguing. When you set aside the word games, it becomes obvious that the USA is making policy moves that will hurt Canada and Canadians, and that is notably less ally-like behavior than anytime in my life, or yours.

> Saying things isn't the same as believing them.

Yeah it seems pretty clear you don't believe the nonsense you're saying. you'd argue in better faith if it weren't the case.

> Trudeau doesn't believe any of what he is saying here,

Unprovable.

> he is trying to rally support from his support base because the Liberals are likely to lose the next election.

I think this community should take anyone making claims like "Liberals are likely to lose the next election" with a grain of salt the size of an iceberg. Politics is more complex than what you make it to be.

> He is trying to stoke a "rally around the flag" effect.

Both things can be true.

> Guy talks over a story entitled "The inside story of a high-stakes call between Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump as the tariff deadline loomed". Subtitle is that Justin Trudeau "revealed" some details "behind closed doors". Why should I trust this guy's interpretation of a paywalled article about some journalist's impressions of some Trudeau advisor's impressions of Trudeau's claimed experience on a call with Trump?

Because we don't have a better alternative? Because it's supported by other reporting as well? Perhaps if you would step up and support your opinions we could do better.

> That's four levels of people with an incentive to spin the story.

You need to work on your counting.

> Then it is a NY Times article about Trump challenging some border arrangements with Canada about water access. How is this an indication he wants to annex Canada? It is absurd.
>
> Trump allegedly said he didn't think "the treaty that demarcates the border between the United States and Canada" is valid? More likely he wants to do exactly what he said: renegotiate the arrangements between the US and Canada about how the border and shared water resources are managed.

Ignoring that there are mineral resources in play as well here doesn't bode well for your intellectual accountability. https://globalnews.ca/news/11067613/donald-trump-tariffs-cri...

"But Trump is also pushing mineral-rich countries to join his cause — even by threatening their sovereignty."

> The guy goes on to say Trudeau got caught on a hot mic. Lol. No politician gets caught on a hot mic in 2025 just by chance right in the middle of a political issue like this. It was very obviously staged like all these other so-called hot mic incidents. He wants to dispel the obvious notion that he is just playing this up to try to win the election.

Whether or not it's staged has nothing to do with whether or not it has truth. A staged hot mic is is just one of many ways to communicate in the political arena. You can't pretend that Trudeau is just playing things up when provincial governments are also starting to act on the growing hostilities: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/us-truck-tol...

> Why would Trump be so resistant to giving security guarantees and NATO membership to Ukraine if he didn't think holding to security guarantees like NATO was important?

Because he is using his capitulation in Ukraine as a 'card' in the game where he, Putin, and Xi drag us back deeper into the multi-polar-world-mode where shipping is much less safe, there's much less trading, and power is much more concentrated in the hands of the few. It's like picking teams in schoolyard football. Russia picked Ukraine to bully and invade, and now we're picking the Panama Canal, Canada, and Greenland to bully then invade. There's certainly rumblings of things popping of in Taiwan in the next 3 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the suwalki gap gets attacked in the next 10 years with Russia trying to peel off the baltics. It seems plausible for there to be a concrete test of Article 5 over some sort of border strike along the finnish border areas. I predict global conflict will expand over the next 4 years, due to this divvying up process that you seem to be ignorant of.

I also predict Sal Mercogliano is going to have a busy 4 years reporting on all the crap that will happen on the oceans as the world order changes.

Why do you think Trump is capable of thinking anything besides his own enrichment or engrandizement is important? Given his long and storied track record of prioritizing himself over everyone else, including his own children, how do you justify your confidence in being able to say Trump is trustworthy with making any kind of security guarantee?