"fair point, actually"
but one JI will never acknowledge in 'print'.
Obama wants to increase the US presence in Afghanistan AND amend NAFTA to the detriment of Canadian trade and by extension, our own economic well-being.
But apart from that, he's great for Canada!
A "special envoy"?
Well, that's the kind of hard-hitting, deeply insightful policy provision that will cause me to vote for a Democrat come November, if it happens to be Hillary Clinton.
By which I mean, of course, that I'm that much more dedicated to voting for God Damned John McCain as the least evil.
Chip: What's wrong with increasing the US presence in Afghanistan, from a Canadian point of view?
Personally, I think it's a good thing.
My point is that those Canadians who love Obama are too lazy, stupid or both to recognize that his policy on Afghanistan and NAFTA is a) at odd with theirs; and b) very harmful to Canadian interests.
These are Canadians on holiday from reality, and unfortunately they probably make up a majority of voters in this country.
Chip: I'm willing, arguendum, to assume that Obama's NAFTA policy would harm Canada (I haven't paid enough attention to Obama's policies to know them, since I am not going to vote for him).
But my question was about how his alleged (in that talk is cheap, especially before an election) policy of sending more US troops to Afghanistan harms Canadian interests at all?
I'm not even sure how it's at odds with what the majority of Canadians want, since I'm not aware that Canadians have strong feelings about the presence of US troops in Afghanistan under a UN mandate.
(Or, alternatively, when you listed A) and B), did you mean that his NAFTA policy was harmful, and his Afghanistan policy contrary to their wishes - but not harmful? That makes a lot more sense to me, but the wording makes it read like A and B both apply to both policies.)