this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
313 points (97.3% liked)

Boycott US

612 readers
22 users here now

Overview:


The community dedicated to boycotting the US until they stop fascism, restore full democracy and start following international law.


Americans have a moral obligation to resist Donald Trump and project 2025 at every turn.


America is a flawed democracy currently being ruled by oligarchs. Stop the backslide! Dont let America become the next Hungary.


America needs to get rid of citizen's united and implement independent district drawing and the single transferable vote so they don't end up having people stay home in life-changing elections because they cannot vote for their favourite candidate.


Related communities:

Boycott:!buycanadian@lemmy.ca

!buyeuropean@feddit.uk

!buyafrican@baraza.africa

!boycottchina@sopuli.xyz

!boycott@lemmy.sdf.org

Activism:!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world

!petitions@lemmy.ca

!palestine@sopuli.xyz

!protest@lemmy.world

!israelicrimes@lemmy.world

!patriotsforprogress@lemmy.ca

!goodsuniteus@lemmy.ca


founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 116 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So Canada solves 2 problems with 1 move. They get to sell to a partner not keen on fucking them and EU gets oil to replace the Russian supply.

[–] troed@fedia.io 59 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Watch Trump end sanctions on Russa to buy russian oil.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

at a premium price, no doubt, too.

[–] troed@fedia.io 33 points 2 weeks ago

The best oil. Much oilier than Canadian oil.

[–] SaturdayMorning@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago

He already did. Most likely this is what the new usa-russia economic partnership is all about. Krasnov is betting papa putin will save him once again.

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Russian oil wouldn't replace the gap. It's not the right type of oil for our refineries. It's much more likely we start pumping it from federal land reserves in Alaska at double the pace.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 weeks ago

That's a nice pipe there.

Shame if something happened to it.

[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 66 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I dont want to watch the YouTube video. Does anyone have a link to a news article that covers this?

[–] ButtDrugs@lemm.ee 23 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Fuck the AI "boom", but this is the best legitimate use of it around, summarizing annoying videos or long documents. Here's an AI summary.

Here is a summary of the video:

  • Canada, rich in energy resources, has historically been a key energy supplier to the United States [00:00].
  • However, due to protectionist tariffs imposed by the U.S., Canada is now diversifying its energy exports towards European and Asian markets [00:30].
  • This shift could have implications for the U.S., potentially weakening its global balance of power and energy security [00:39].
  • Canada's new commodity pacts with the European Union and Asia could redirect the flow of low-cost heavy oil, natural gas, and critical minerals away from the U.S. [00:46].
  • The European Union is one of the world's largest economies and Canada's second-largest trading partner, offering significant opportunities for growth [03:47].
  • A comprehensive trade agreement between Canada and the EU aims to reduce Canada's dependence on the U.S. market [04:04].
  • If Canada's energy exports shift to the EU and Asia, the U.S. could face disadvantages such as higher energy costs and reduced bargaining power [06:16].
  • Canada is focusing on key commodities to strengthen its economy and become indispensable to U.S. interests [07:04].
  • Canadian oil and gas exports support U.S. energy reserves, lower consumer costs, and aid in expanding international energy exports [08:51].
  • Canada's increasing capacity to ship oil to tidewater markets allows it to support global allies like South Korea and Japan [10:32].
  • Canadian natural gas can help ensure abundant domestic supplies in the U.S. and free up space for exports to allies [10:48].
  • Canada is poised to become a major liquefied natural gas supplier, particularly to strategic Asian allies [11:27].
  • Low-cost Canadian electricity can power various U.S. endeavors, and new projects aim to boost electricity exports while saving costs [12:03].
  • The rapid growth of AI technology in the U.S. is expected to drive a sharp increase in electricity consumption, which Canada can help meet [12:56].
  • Canada's strategic move to diversify its energy exports could potentially change the geopolitical balance in terms of global energy security [13:13]. Would you like to ask about another video?
[–] kokope11i@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah AI is great for this kinda stuff. My personal favorite use is "make is concise"

Canada is shifting its energy exports away from the U.S. toward European and Asian markets due to American protectionist tariffs. This strategic diversification of Canadian oil, gas, and minerals could weaken U.S. energy security and global influence while raising American energy costs. Canada's resources currently benefit the U.S. by supporting reserves, lowering costs, and enabling exports. As Canada develops more capacity to supply global allies directly, particularly with electricity that could power America's growing AI sector, this reorientation may significantly alter global energy geopolitics.

[–] lunar17@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What model did you use to generate this summary?

[–] ButtDrugs@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Just the free gemini model, asked my android phone to summarize it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 49 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Very good. This is the start of a very desirable NATO sans US - or whatever it should be renamed - and it's high time. In a way, Trump's idiocy may have precipitated a very healthy redefinition of transatlantic relationships.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

why rename it? it's a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with or without the US

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 weeks ago

The same reason IG Farben was renamed BASF after the war: there was nothing wrong with the name and it was the same company core (minus a few bits) but IG Farben was a bit too associated with Zyklon B.

NATO is intimately associated with the US for historical reasons. A new name would signal a willingness to put down the historical baggage and start afresh.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

True. But we're dealing with a toddler to the south. A move like this, as good as it is, is going to antagonize his annexation talk to the point where he might actually try something.

This is going to get worse before it gets better. But yes, I think we'll come out the other side a far better world without the U.S. as a superpower.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 18 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

On the one hand, this is going to hurt working class. A lot. Most of the US has no good mass transit. No car means no paycheck.

On the other hand, stellar power move. Impressive.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 weeks ago

Most of the US has no good mass transit. No car means no paycheck.

That undecided bloc should've voted then. They can make it up for it by protesting against the tariffs.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

You say "on one hand... on the other hand" as if both things aren't good.

The American working class -- and I say this as a member of it -- needs to be hurt in order to find the motivation to depose its dictator.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They should voted then and not wait til now to protest.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

70+ million of us bothered to vote no. We did the reading and even though we didn’t fail the test, we failed the test anyway.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

theres also rigging involved, but dems will never call it that, because the Rs already did. too scared chickenshit, the DNC is just hoping to coast by and win marginally in general, thats thier message never sticks to the common voters.

[–] Daelsky@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s sad how most of the DNC just abandoned everything the second after the election was done. I get they don’t have the house/senate, but holy shit this is though to watch from up North in Canada.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

thats how beto lost in texas, and how Younkin won virgnia(which have been constantly blue), "not trump" message just doesnt sell for them, wont work against racism either. the Rs have done very good job at propaganda and taken advantage of the polarized party system. if you taken IR classes, the instructors will be first to point out the 2 party system is very polarized and unnatural in america. DNc has to Rebrand in order to get any more elections. even in the city im living which has always been historically blue, just voted in someone more to the right of center right(though not red)

[–] kokope11i@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Good, let the working class feel the self inflicted pain. - a frustrated American

[–] martin4598@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who did this Working class vote for? Or did it vote at all?

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

I voted against it.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is actually really bad as far as emissions are concerned. The emissions from transportation of oil alone are massive, outweighing all other emissions from overseas transport.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Countries have largely abandoned the climate change initiative for a while, a video by sabin explains it well

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

I'm not sure what value this comment adds to the conversation.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's stating a point that is unfortunately true. It's important to know.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

it should balance out somewhat--the u.s. exports are roughly the same as its canadian imports; unless they do something really stupid like increasing what's already historic production levels to make up for the loss of canadian imports.

[–] truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Container ships lower earth average temperature by 0.3 °C via SO2 emissions. That's why the IMO limiting sulphur content of bunker fuel was a bad move, which could catapult us above 2 °C.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3

[–] Daelsky@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Really interesting, thanks for the read.

[–] jh29a@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 weeks ago

This speakers grammar based intonation and sentence structure is weird.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

King Faisal watching Canadians hit America with another oil crisis:

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Blame Trump for slapping a 10% tariff without thinking about his actions.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

without thinking about his actions.

[citation needed]

When it comes to Trump, people really need to quit attributing to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.

[–] root_beer@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Hanlon’s razor has been really tricky for the last decade; on one hand, yeah, he’s a cruel, malignant tinpot hell-bent on wrecking everything for personal gain but on the other hand, we’ve all heard the guy talk, right?

[–] Kaput@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

The tarrifs are way less worrisome than the make Canada join USA through economic war effort.

[–] luckystarr@feddit.org 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My worries: This is going to impact US energy ~~security~~ prices. The US invaded for less.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 17 points 2 weeks ago

Canadians gotta learn from their predecessors how to handle US tyranny. Here's an example from the 1973 oil crisis:

Kissinger stated in a private state department meeting that it's “ridiculous that the civilized world is held up by 8 million savages... Can’t we overthrow one of the sheikhs just to show that we can do it?” They formed a plan to invade Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.[60][61] Kissinger publicly threatened "countermeasures" in a Nov 21st, 1973 press conference if the embargo was not lifted, and the Saudis responded with threatening further oil cuts and to burn their oil fields if the US military invaded. After the CIA confirmed these threats, Kissinger gave up military intervention and decided that dealing with Israel's troop withdrawals and settled on diplomatic solutions to the oil embargo.

load more comments
view more: next ›