To answer the OP title question.

Our country is not nearly as important as their paychecks and celebrity status. Yes, I cry for my country, but I think we got here honestly. These really are the values of a large hunk of our population.

asking the same.

the corporate media is the CORPORATE media.

Thanks for the thread kentuck

he should have been "put away" when he was hanging out with Roy Cohn, or even before that. He is a SF.

as mad as a box of frogs, so the media can't figure out how to cover him - they have only ever had to report on bad presidents, not insane ones. Our whole political/governmental system was set up to deal with bad people, but not with crazy people. There are procedures in place to deal with bad presidents and other bad politicians; the Founding Fathers recognized the possibility that bad people could achieve positions of power so they crafted a system of checks and balances. This usually works pretty well to control or weed out the bad people and bad policies, but not the crazy people and crazy policies. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were bad in various ways, but they were not crazy. Nixon was dishonest and he drank too much; Reagan was dishonest and probably had Alzheimers by the time he left office; Bush was dishonest and fairly stupid - but they were sane. They could be described and their actions could mostly be predicted and opposed.

But how do we, as a system, deal with someone who isn't even passably normal? I'm not a psychologist and I don't even play one on TV, but it's obvious that that boy ain't right. His behavior is bizarre and unpredictable and often inexplicably destructive. His reasons for doing anything make sense only to him, and he changes his mind more often than most people change their underwear. We don't know what to do with him so we keep treating him like just another bad but sane president. It's not working. He really should be in a rubber room and loaded up with Thorazine, but since that's not possible he at least shouldn't be regarded as anything approaching normal. No, it's not part of any normal universe to talk about invading Canada, and the appropriate headline should be something like Has Trump lost his f*ing mind?? and not just some expression of puzzled concern.

We are in the Upside Down and The System had better start realizing it.

real estate mogul, he most likely would have died on the streets or in prison.

Talk about lucky sperm club.

To his face. When he said, "They're eating the pets!" she just laughed, but I wish she would have said something like this: "Are you fucking NUTS, man? Do you REALLY believe that?!? How STUPID and GULLIBLE can you be, to actually BELIEVE that nonsense? I bet you also think Jewish space lasers are rigging our elections, and Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a D.C. pizza restaurant, and boys are going to school in the morning and coming home in the afternoon girls, and batshit crazy stuff like that. Get real, man, and start living in the real world!" I wish she would have said that to him, or something like it, to his face, obscenities included. It would have been a Joseph Welch/Joseph McCarthy "Have you no sense of decency, sir" moment that would have woken up a lot of voters.

— Ron

Question is, who are "they"? Are they delusions if you have the power to make them happen?

He's creating a narrative for us reasonable people to focus our outrage on - an absurd, ridiculous idea, and his whole administration's playing along with a straight face. That's Kayfabe. He's trolling Canada. He's trolling the British Commonwealth. He's trolling us Liberals.

He argues from bad faith 100% of the time. He'll keep it up, too. He learned from Roy Cohn and Vince McMahon. Always double down; never walk it back.

I don't know what "media" you consume, but I haven't seen it treated as normal. It's just that newspaper reporting doesn't trade in "he's crazy"; journalistic form is what "normalizes" outrageous statements. Unlike so much of DU, I can read between the lines of NYT reporting; they think he's a fucking clown.

But it is playing with fire and many folks are going to get burned. There are consequences to their "trolling".

Sometimes, folks take threats seriously.

As if it was designed to make us vulnerable and alone, exposed to the dangers they are planning next for us.

Separate you from your friends, drive them away, and tell you lies about them.

welcome to DU.

insult an entire nation. In his mental confusion, he seems to think he's flattering Canadians, when it's a slap in their collective face.

He was rude to the leader from Ireland, today, too. Accused Ireland of taking trade advantage of the U.S.

There are 10 Canadian provinces and three territories. That would be 13 new U.S. states, not one, wouldn't it? Canada is HUGE, way too big to be just one state. That's another reason why the idea of making Canada our 51st state is nuts. They would be states number 51 through 63. Wouldn't they?

— Ron

..seems a bit narcissistic and arrogant. Of course it's also insulting and belittling. Like calling our ex- PM Trudeau "Governor". All calculated to demean and anger. He is truly a malevolent man-child.

If Canada was to be part of the US, it should be split into 10 states; one for each of it's provinces. That would be 20 Senators.
Also, 40 million people would probably break down to about 55-65 Representatives across the 10 provinces.
That'd only be fair to insure they had a reasonable say in Congress.
Do you think the Republicans would ever stand for such an immediate shift in the power structure of the United States?
I'm sure the Canadians would never stand for just 2 Senators for 40 million people, when Wyoming has 2 Senators for less than 600,000 people.
The concept of Canada as a 51st state should really be discussed as Canada being the 51st, 52nd, 53rd, 54dth, 55th, 56th, 57th, 58th, and 59th, and 60th states.
This is only logical, since Canada already has 10 provincial authorities, like states, in addition to it's central government.

I'm not saying that Canada should become part of the US, but, to be fair, it only makes sense if they have a reasonable share in the governing of the US. I think it's safe to say that Canada would never agree to such a ridiculous arrangement as being just one state. And very few people in our current government would agree to my 10 state suggestion.

Best to leave things the way they are.

Wasn't part of this whole make-Canada-a-state thing to stop the drug trade?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if the existing boarder of 5,500 miles with the US is responsible for an uncontrollable introduction of drugs into the US is done away with, then there is no more drug smuggling across the border. Now I get it. We eliminate that 5,500 mile border and no drugs can be smuggled across it. Okay. So far, so good.

The next step would simply be to patrol the additional 150,000 miles of new coastline. Easy peasy. Stop the drugs on new, longer, border.

And this is an anger that will last for generations. Our trust in America is broken, and won't soon be fixed.

Sid