Andrew Coyne of the Toronto Globe and Mail wrote and had published this Trump-hate screed, and, naturally, it was re-posted and widely liked and loved by my many Trump Deranged Facebook Friends. It has everything: bias, spin, fantasy, Axis talking points swallowed whole, hysteria, fearmongering and hatehatehate.
And no, the thing is not worth fisking. All one can do is shake one’s head. You might want to review the “Big Lies of the Resistance,” which were mostly compiled during the first Trump administration. Are they all here?
Read on…
“Nothing mattered, in the end. Not the probable dementia, the unfathomable ignorance, the emotional incontinence; not, certainly, the shambling, hate-filled campaign, or the ludicrously unworkable anti-policies.
“The candidate out on bail in four jurisdictions, the convicted fraud artist, the adjudicated rapist and serial sexual predator, the habitual bankrupt, the stooge of Vladimir Putin, the man who tried to overturn the last election and all of his creepy retinue of crooks, ideologues and lunatics: Americans took a long look at all this and said, yes please.
“There is no sense in understating the depth of the disaster. This is a crisis like no other in our lifetimes. The government of the United States has been delivered into the hands of a gangster, whose sole purpose in running, besides staying out of jail, is to seek revenge on his enemies. The damage Donald Trump and his nihilist cronies can do – to America, but also to its democratic allies, and to the peace and security of the world – is incalculable. We are living in the time of Nero.
“The first six months will be a time of maximum peril. NATO must from this moment be considered effectively obsolete, without the American security guarantee that has always been its bedrock. We may see new incursions by Russia into Europe – the poor Ukrainians are probably done for, but now it is the Baltics and the Poles who must worry – before the Europeans have time to organize an alternative. China may also accelerate its Taiwanese ambitions.
“At home, Mr. Trump will be moving swiftly to consolidate his power. Some of this will be institutional – the replacement of tens of thousands of career civil servants with Trumpian loyalists. But some of it will be … atmospheric.
“At some point someone – a company whose chief executive has displeased him, a media critic who has gotten under his skin – will find themselves the subject of unwanted attention from the Trump administration. It might not be so crude as a police arrest. It might just be a little regulatory matter, a tax audit, something like that. They will seek the protection of the courts, and find it is not there.
“The judges are also Trump loyalists, perhaps, or too scared to confront him. Or they might issue a ruling, and find it has no effect – that the administration has called the basic bluff of liberal democracy: the idea that, in the crunch, people in power agree to be bound by the law, and by its instruments the courts, the same as everyone else. Then everyone will take their cue. Executives will line up to court him. Media organizations, the large ones anyway, will find reasons to be cheerful.
“Of course, in reality things will start to fall apart fairly quickly. The huge across-the-board tariffs he imposes will tank the world economy. The massive deficits, fueled by his ill-judged tax policies – he won’t replace the income tax, as he promised, but will fill it with holes – and monetized, at his direction, by the Federal Reserve, will ignite a new round of inflation.
“Most of all, the insane project of deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants – finding them, rounding them up and detaining them in hundreds of internment camps around the country, probably for years, before doing so – will consume his administration. But by then it will be too late.
“We should not count upon the majority of Americans coming to their senses in any event. They were not able to see Mr. Trump for what he was before: why should that change? Would they not, rather, be further coarsened by the experience of seeing their neighbours dragged off by the police, or the military, further steeled to the necessity of doing “tough things” to “restore order?”
“Some won’t, of course. But they will find in time that the democratic levers they might once have pulled to demand change are no longer attached to anything. There are still elections, but the rules have been altered: there are certain obstacles, certain disadvantages if you are not with the party of power. It will seem easier at first to try to change things from within. Then it will be easier not to change things.
“All of this will wash over Canada in various ways – some predictable, like the flood of refugees seeking escape from the camps; some less so, like the coarsening of our own politics, the debasement of morals and norms by politicians who have discovered there is no political price to be paid for it. And who will have the backing of their patron in Washington.
“All my life I have been an admirer of the United States and its people. But I am frightened of it now, and I am even more frightened of them.”
Ethics Alarms 
🥱 call me when there’s something original.
At the very beginning of the Wuhan Flu insanity, a Canadian friend posted a video of a guy impersonating Trump essentially mocking Trump’s attempts to calm people down. Here was a guy trying to keep the country and the economy from jumping into a deep hole in the face of an unknown pathogen. Trump was getting no good advice from the medical establishment. It was Chicken Little everywhere. Of all people, epidemiologists were running the country.
I was so angry I wrote back to her, “Fuck you!” End of friendship.
It’s amazing how everyone outside the United States has some kind of super vote in US presidential elections. We saw that in Holland. Of course, US people have no say in foreign elections because they are largely parliamentary and therefor incomprehensible to us.
Can I quote Scott Jennings? Just choke on it.
I think Canadians, after putting up and abetting their own proto fascist prime minister for so many years, have little room to cast aspersions at Trump, especially when they seem to be mostly projection.
They look at what they’ve been doing in Canada (and Great Britain even more so) and figure that must be what Trump is doing in the United States.
He who is without sin, yada, yada, yada.
:snarl:
===========
Sorry, but this just rubs me the wrong way.
Speaking of lefty projection, John “Won’t you please go now!” Brennan is leading the pack: Brennan: Trump Is Acting Like A Despot And Cabinet Needs To Step Up, “I’m Old Enough To Remember Watergate” | Video | RealClearPolitics
What a jerk.
I wonder how much that “adjudicated rapist” statement will cost him. He should have checked with George Stephanopolis before writing that.
What is interesting is that he never suggests Canada would fill the breach in Europe left by the US if Russia invaded the Baltics. Why can’t Canada buy all those surplus goods the Americans won’t buy because of the tariffs?. Why is he so afraid of the influx of undocumented people fleeing the US? Does he have something against the undocumented. I won’t even discuss the unleashing of global inflation through monetary policy because you cannot expand he money supply unless sufficient demand exists from borrowers.
My favorite is still the dementia smear. I hear this from my Trump Deranged friends all the time. I’ve had conversations with people with dementia. Trump’s rambling free association style is not unique among successful and sharp people through history; its eccentric and its annoying, but it’s not dementia. Nobody ever accused Casey Stengal of being demented.
“I am frightened of it now, and I am even more frightened of them.” On this the right and left seem to agree — Everyone should be terrified! Fear, fear, fear!
Yeah, no thank you … a big problem with fear is that it is such a useful tool to manipulate people.
Maybe we need a courage initiative? Or at least SOME kind of positive vision of the possible future that doesn’t cast the majority of Americans as hell-bent on destroying the country in some way or another?
Makes me nostalgic for Reagan….
“Americans took a long look at all this and said, yes please”…
At some point, when most everyone else sees a triangle when you’re still seeing a circle, you might finally pause a moment and ask if you might be mistaken about seeing a circle. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but the exercise of trying to understand how others are seeing a triangle might actually be illumining. And you might find out that you never were seeing a circle to begin with, and only wished it were a circle you were seeing.
Comment of the Day, in part because it makes me want to expand on it.
Yes! Great comment!
If I hear the message of the writer correctly:
Everything about Trump violates the unwritten Canadian social contract – affirm everyone and everyone wins – except for those we deem bad people.
To be fair…. Coyne wrote that on November 6, 2024, when people on the left were freaking out, generally, and literally nothing written there wasn’t written in whole or in part by an American at the time.
Also to be fair, Andrew Coyne is a particularly embarrassing journalist, generally. This wasn’t special for him, and he’s not particularly popular up here, even if he does write for the Globe and Mail, and even if his editors continue to allow him to publish.
It’s interesting, with a year of hindsight, how much he was wrong about, and what he was right about.
“Of course, in reality things will start to fall apart fairly quickly. The huge across-the-board tariffs he imposes will tank the world economy. The massive deficits, fueled by his ill-judged tax policies – he won’t replace the income tax, as he promised, but will fill it with holes – and monetized, at his direction, by the Federal Reserve, will ignite a new round of inflation.”
This was largely correct, Trump’s tariffs were a destabilization and the markets haven’t fully recovered from them, making the last year kind of a lost year in earnings… Unless you were financially solvent enough to buy the dip. Not saying that he planned that, necessarily, but the people who did well this last year weren’t pensioners, let’s put it that way. And the American deficit, despite DOGE, is on track to increase about 5% (100 billion to 1.9 trillion this year, with a quarter left to go.), which means that his tax cuts plus the big beautiful bill did nothing to curb the rate of American spending: America’s debt, like the deficit, is going up an additional 5% this year (from 35 to 37 trillion). Between that and some very questionable market manipulation on fertilizer, I don’t see a reason why inflation (particularly in food) wouldn’t continue to increase over the next three years.
And still, no one has articulated why it was necessary to do this.
Policy criticism, regardless of merit, is fair territory for a journalist or anyone else. But the ad hominem stuff and the ridiculous over-the-top characterizations eliminate any credibility a critic or journalist might have otherwise.
EXACTLY!!!
Humble Talent wrote, “…Trump’s tariffs were a destabilization and the markets haven’t fully recovered from them…”
You and I differ on whether tariffs are needed or not but this statement is way out in left field. I don’t have a clue where you’re getting your information from, but you’re dead wrong about the markets. Here are some actual facts that you might consider.
You can clearly see in the graphs above (obtained a few minutes ago) what the delusional anti-Trump apocalyptic fear mongering did to the markets on April 8, 2025 and then how rapidly everyone unburied their collective heads from their ass. No only did the markets recover from the fear mongering low but they have exceeded the markets from a year ago.
You’re welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
“You and I differ on whether tariffs are needed or not but this statement is way out in left field. I don’t have a clue where you’re getting your information from, but you’re dead wrong about the markets. Here are some actual facts that you might consider.”
“The Market” is more complicated than just the results of the stock market, and even the stock market is more complicated than “line goes up”. It depends what your goal is…. If the goal is shareholder wealth, then maybe… I think a lot of people were buying the dip and inflated the market, I don’t see a reason for the recent inflation past vibes and noise, but the numbers are the numbers. If however you’re looking at employment, inflation, and recession… This is the American Tax Foundation, and they estimate that American GDP will be down about 1%, which they fully attribute to the tariffs, and they estimate that translates to the loss of about 800,000 full time equivalencies in hours worked. That’s Before retaliation is taken into account. This is on the heels of the CBO reducing their May and June jobs report down about 250,000 jobs between the months, and the July numbers coming in soft.
And The thing is… There aren’t a whole lot of economists really excited about this, and it doesn’t take much Googling to figure that out… Financial Publications that are historically aligned with Republicans, Economists, CEOs, people who are hardly raging progressives, anyone who knows anything on this subject are basically in alignment: This isn’t good.
Which is why I think there’s a burden on people like you to articulate why you think this is a good idea. It’s not enough to just say we have different opinions, tell us why you think what you do. And for the record: I don’t think that you can articulate that. My impression is that you, and people like you, just Trust Trump. That hold the idea that the man is playing 4D underwater chess, and that even though this looks stupid, goes against basically every historical example ever, and a lot of early indicators and intelligent people are saying this is bad, you think that if you just continue to support Trump, it’ll all work out in the end.
Which, I’m just saying, feels culty.
Humble Talent,
Thanks for your follow-up explanation that you were expanding the use of the term “the market” beyond what I would consider typical, and thanks for your clarification below of what “do this” was referring to.
Whether I agree with your opinions or not is not relevant at this point, you tried to cover the points I raised and I don’t feel the need to go any further.
Thanks
Steve
Humble Talent wrote, “And still, no one has articulated why it was necessary to do this.”
If you’re talking about articulating why it was necessary to impose tariffs, which it seems like that’s what you are focusing on, yes “someone” right here on Ethics Alarms has specifically articulated why it was necessary to impose tariffs; “Tariffs Have Been Needed For Decades“.
If that’s not what you were talking about, could you narrow down what your “do this” is referring to.
“If that’s not what you were talking about, could you narrow down what your “do this” is referring to.“
I responded to your post when you made it, and in re-reading it, by the end you’d basically conceded everything I said… Trade was going to happen, free trade is cheaper and more desirable unless you have a specific motivation, and your example of a dip in Canadian steel production wasn’t because Canada was playing hardball, but because China had bought up a lot of raw material and you would have been hooped regardless of where the production was.
“Do this” is me vaguely gesturing towards this whole situation, frustrated by the obvious bullshit that it is. But if you want me to ask you to comment on a couple of specifics, sure. In order:
Potash, Coffee, Car Parts.
Probably the least intelligent, most inflationary tariff vectors. Describe for us why you think they’re a good idea.
Humble Talent wrote, “…by the end you’d basically conceded everything I said…”
I’m not going to rehash any of the conversation in the thread I linked to except for your use of the word “conceded” to describe some of the points where we agreed. You’re welcome to your opinions; however, I think your used of the word “conceded” is a misrepresentation of what happened.
I mean… You made points, I responded to them, and then you agreed with my responses… That feels concessiony. But if anyone is confused, or cares, that link works and they could figure it out for themselves.
Just for the record: You aren’t going to try to defend the tariffs as being good? No articulation on why they might do something you want them to do? No defense to artificially increasing the price of coffee?
Humble Talent wrote, “I mean… You made points, I responded to them, and then you agreed with my responses… That feels concessiony.” [Bold Mine]
We’re not here to coddle to your feelings. Either what took place in our conversation in that thread meets the actual definition of conceding or it doesn’t, I don’t think it meets the definition and that’s why I said that I think it was a misrepresentation. Your feelings about it are irrelevant.
Concede: admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it.
Again HT, you really are welcome to your opinions, as I stated in my previous comment, and so am I. I’ve stated my opinion on this and I’m letting it go now, you’ve stated your opinion on this too, maybe you should let it go too.
Humble Talent wrote, “But if anyone is confused, or cares, that link works and they could figure it out for themselves.”
That’s exactly why I provided the link and I encourage others to read the original post and our exchange in the comments thread, read it all and make up your own minds. It was a good conversation.
Humble Talent wrote, “Just for the record: You aren’t going to try to defend the tariffs as being good?”
Seriously HT, I already did that in the post that I linked to and in that comment thread. If people are interested in my opinion on this topic they can follow the link, read about it, and make up their own mind.
Humble Talent wrote, “Just for the record…”, “No articulation on why they might do something you want them to do?”
Ditto my “Seriously HT…” reply above.
Humble Talent wrote, “Just for the record…”, “No defense to artificially increasing the price of coffee?”
Nope. In fact HT, I don’t care if the one cup of coffee I make and enjoy at home every morning goes up 5¢, 10¢ or even 20¢ a cup. There are much more important things in life.
“Either what took place in our conversation in that thread meets the actual definition of conceding or it doesn’t“
Pure sophistry. You said all the words, Steve;
“Concede: admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it.“
“Humble Talent wrote, “I mean… You made points, I responded to them, and then you agreed with my responses“
What word do you want me to use when I respond to your posts with counterarguments, and then you agree with me? Insert that word where I said concede.
Using the link as the example:
Objectively, that was very concessiony.
Humble Talent wrote, “Objectively, that was very concessiony.”
What part of…
…did you not understand?
Well Steve, if at any point you’d like to exit the conversation, I can’t respond to nothing. But so long as you keep stretching your neck out, I’m more than willing to indulge your masochism.
Take this for example:
“Again HT, you really are welcome to your opinions, as I stated in my previous comment, and so am I”
Well, actually, you aren’t, because:
“We’re not here to coddle to your feelings. Either what took place in our conversation in that thread meets the actual definition of conceding or it doesn’t“
TROLLING: Posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, n, to draw attention to themself and for their own amusement.
For the sake of fellow participants around here, I’m not going down your trolling rabbit hole HT. You get the last word.
I’m done with you in this thread.
Look in the mirror, Steve.
Ah, you guys are harkening back to the epic Stephen Pilling-TGT battles of yesteryear, followed by the even more epic Michael West-TGT exchanges that drove our libertarian/atheist spokesperson from the comment wars permanently. I assume you both are made of sterner stuff…
“Just for the record: You aren’t going to try to defend the tariffs as being good?”
Seriously HT, I already did that in the post that I linked to and in that comment thread. If people are interested in my opinion on this topic they can follow the link, read about it, and make up their own mind.
No, what you did was identify problems, and I agree that some of what you identified are legitimate problems, but what you haven’t done to this day is explain why you think the tariffs, and in particular Trump’s ham-fisted version of tariffs, will solve your problems.
It’s like someone saying they want to buy a pogo stick, and when you ask them why, they say that they moved 20 miles from work and can’t walk to work anymore.
They’ve accurately identified a problem: They need transportation. A solution has been identified: A pogo stick. But is a pogo stick the best option? Or even a realistic one? Is the plan to actually pogo 40 miles a day?
Nope. In fact HT, I don’t care if the one cup of coffee I make and enjoy at home every morning goes up 5¢, 10¢ or even 20¢ a cup. There are much more important things in life.
Coffee was the easy to explain version of a larger issue, which is that America is taxing all their imports that aren’t covered under trade agreements at least 10%, and that 10% includes a lot of things that people use day to day. Trump ran on the platform that he would take steps to curb inflation and lower grocery prices, but his policies are directly inflationary specifically on a lot of food imports, and that’s particularly stupid when you consider that a lot of these products cannot be produced in America.
Again… I think that if you’re going to position yourself as being in favor of these policies, you should be able to articulate what you think the policies are going to do that has a positive outcome.
Tariffs are a political tool to minimize China’s influence, and maximize our influence. It absolutely will disrupt world trade, and cause disruption here at home. Certainly an effect may or may not be that it eases the tax burden on some citizens, but that is merely a side effect.
Apple alone has spent more money (200-300 times more) and given more technology to China than we did to reconstruct Japan after WW2. The point is to force companies to manufacture in the US as opposed to China.
If the tariffs were just on China, that would be correct… But the whole… What did he call it? Liberation day? Whatever that announcement was called, the math on that was basically that if America bought more from a country than they sold to it, there was going to be a “retaliatory” tariff for “unfair practices”.
But the reality is that especially a lot of third world countries just don’t need what America produces, and these tariffs end up being straight-taxes on things America doesn’t, and can’t, produce. As an example: Brazil is being tariffed at 50%. Every coffee producing nation is being tariffed at least 10%. There is no domestic production of Coffee in America.
Trump has inflated the coffee price in America by a minimum of 10%, and no one can tell me why that’s a good idea. You aren’t hurting those countries, and I don’t know why you’d want to even if you could: They’re never going to be able to buy enough from you to offset the trade deficit. Meanwhile… Their price didn’t change, because why should it? Your price did. Your coffee costs more today than it did in January because Trump did a thing. He could immediately undo that same thing and prices would lower. But he isn’t. Why is that good?