You live in Austin and donated to support protests in Canada?
I’m curious about that - why are you actively getting involved in another country?
I’m curious about that - why are you actively getting involved in another country?
I'm a class traitor frankly. My whole family works in jobs like this that have been impacted. One of my old co-founders was a 24 big-rig truck mechanic and his dad is being put out of business by the California CARB restrictions.
But aside from the specifics, I find it odd that people are decrying cross-national donations of money to causes. Were similar complaints made about CA->US donations in 2020? How about national disasters? I don't need a reason to give charitably to causes I care about in the world, and a supposedly cosmopolitan populace wondering about transnational giving seems contradictory to me.
I'm fine with this development as long as we all agree to play by the same rules and remain consistent.
as far as I am aware, no lives have been lost nor businesses destroyed during the current events in Canada.
this was wholly unintentional, I'm not sure how you read that out of either of my prior comments! we were talking about citizen crowdfunding
> What do the midterm or general elections in the United States have to do with American citizens sympathizing with and donating money to causes in other countries? That is not an issue that is on the ballot.
> This is a complete non sequitur.
2. Does america's influence on the world not exist? Why does your original claim of "Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people" only apply if it's on the same continent? Is it better to impose your views on people half way across the world?
So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
>Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there.
Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
>Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
The U.S. didn't even influence China until the normalization of relations under Nixon, in 1972. Furthermore, the relation was always less unequal between the two, than it was and is between the U.S. and other countries in the Americas.
> Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
European powers have historically been very bad at handling African genocides. Even as recently as the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, France initially supported the government of the Génocidaires, and did not aid the victimized Tutsis. Given Europe's awful track record in this area, it is impossible to say how constructive intervention could be.
> You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
I apologize for underrating your grasp of geography.
It's a Canada policy, but is specific to crossing the border from the US.
"Specific to internal affairs" is a stretch at best.
>Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
You forgot BLM.
> It's a Canada policy, but is specific to crossing the border from the US.
Up until the blockade of the border, it was an internal matter entirely, but you are correct here. If the border situation escalates, then the OAS needs to get involved to mediate a ceasefire and ensure that free and fair elections can take place.
Eastern European right wing politicians have always complied about westerners forming NGOs to promote their ideology like same-sex marriage.
Please don't be so quick to put words into other's mouths and then go after them for something they never said.
Someone asked why another user might want to donate to political causes in another country. I responded, clarified I wasn't OP, then - and this is key - further clarified that my post "shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views", and then simply posited why someone might want to. See how I said that you shouldn't see my comment as an endorsement of their donation?
Discussing why someone might want to do something is different from arguing whether or not it is right to do so. At no point have I engaged in the latter. They can be lumped into the same conversation, but I haven't done that in this comment chain.
OP is a citizen in one country who donated to a political movement in another country. In discussing the "why" of that, you asked me:
>So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries?
That's exactly what OP did. The manner in which you phrase your question, along with your follow up question that assumed my answer to the former would be, "Yes", strongly implies I have endorsed OP's views.
>You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
One part of the US funding political action in another US state; someone in Brazil funding political action in India; someone on the moon funding political action on Venus. The point is that $PERSON1 from $REGION1 may feel that $POLITICALMOVEMENT in $REGION2 holds a lot of views that $PERSON1 strongly believes in, and as such they want to donate to them. This is backed up by OP's response confirming shared views. That's what was asked - why donate to another country? - and all I did was given a reason why, named locales be damned.
Now, I can grant that state-to-state and country-to-country are different things. That said, for the sake of a quick example pulled out of my ass, it worked; you're just unable to see the forest for the trees.
As opposed to -lets say- issues related to international trade and crossing an international border between two signatories to NAFTA/USMCA.