EventStatement
Trump's Christmas posts call Trudeau "governor"; as the 51st State, Canadians' taxes "would be cut by more than 60%"
In Christmas Day posts on Truth Social (25 December 2024), Trump again called Trudeau "governor" and wrote that "if Canada was to become our 51st State, their Taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other Country anywhere in the World."
- Date
- Kind
- Provocation
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Donald Trump (acted); Justin Trudeau (target)
Latest articles
No article cites this record yet.
Sources
- NBC News, “Trump takes aim at Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal in Christmas Day posts” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“if Canada was to become our 51st State, their Taxes would be cut by more than 60%”
From NBC News: Trump takes aim at Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal in Christmas Day posts
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | Personal jibes and trolling are consistent with policy driven by impulse and grudges; they fit the annexation reading about as well. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provocative post; it says nothing about Canada's build-out or about foresight of Canada's response, so it fits these readings equally. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provocative post; it says nothing about Canada's build-out or about foresight of Canada's response, so it fits these readings equally. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provocative post; it says nothing about Canada's build-out or about foresight of Canada's response, so it fits these readings equally. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provocative post; it says nothing about Canada's build-out or about foresight of Canada's response, so it fits these readings equally. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Fits weak | Repeating 'governor' and pitching statehood benefits is consistent with an annexation aim, but it is a statement with no action attached. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | A provocative post; it says nothing about Canada's build-out or about foresight of Canada's response, so it fits these readings equally. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Fits weak | Repeating 'governor' and pitching statehood benefits is consistent with a weaken-Canada aim; as a statement it moves little. |