[conistonwater]

WRT citizenship, if I googled it correctly, C-24 requires a terrorism-related conviction, or having obtained the citizenship by misrepresentation or fraud, in order to strip a dual citizen of their Canadian passport. It doesn't seem to be in the same category of things as the sorts of things Trump's doing. I'd say compared with Tories, the Republicans really are in a class of their own.

[throwanem]

> It doesn't seem to be in the same category of things as the sorts of things Trump's doing.

Indeed. While we have similar laws regarding denaturalization, Trump did not make them. But you're probably right about the rest; I doubt a Tory PM would demonstrate the same level of sloppy, slapdash, incompetent jackassery we're seeing from the new occupant of the Oval Office.

Tangentially: I get there's a lot of fear going around on the subject of authoritarianism, dictatorship, Nazis, et al. I don't buy it, not least because we had the same with Bush, and the only difference of note in today's rhetoric is that it's as much hotter and faster as the Internet that powers it - remember that Facebook and Twitter weren't a thing back then. (So far we've come!)

Trump is no Hitler, though, any more than Bush was. He's not even a Mussolini. He might be some fraction of a Berlusconi, but most of all, at least to judge his performance so far, he's an utter boob, and not the first we've had in the office. I suppose an appeal for moderation in rhetoric, and awareness of history in one's analysis, is foredoomed to mockery and oblivion in this age of hot takes and clickbait. But it might ease the mind a bit to take, where you can, a somewhat longer view.

[conistonwater]

It could be that we've been reading different things (Twitter and Facebook aren't good for this sort of things IMO), but my impression is that people had justified suspicions, and that these weren't just Hitler comparisons (which really should be called out, they're too far out). Authoritarianism can mean a range of things, none of them good, and so so long as people base their arguments on things that Trump and his team said or things that they did, people should be on solid enough ground.

As an example, you say "he's an utter noob", and, sure, that is one of the possibilities. But it's not the only possibility, so one would be wrong to say that it's obvious, for example, that he's an utter noob. He might be, or he might not be. How do you know? And those other possibilities have to be considered too, to be fair. It'd be wrong to dismiss them straight up as clickbait without examining the merits.

(I'm not sure if you meant noob or boob, it looked like a typo to me, but as luck would have it, my reply works both ways.)

[throwanem]

Not saying I'm certain, just that it seems the parsimonious conclusion right now.

(I did mean "boob" - see https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/boob .)

[mercurysmessage]

I think a problem with this administration is the ties to Bannon and Breitbart. There is a lot of white nationalism (alt-right) going on in those ranks.

[hedora]

Hmm. I know Canadians that have dual US and Canadian citizenship, and they had to jump through all sorts of hoops ~ 6 years ago. They live in the US. Not sure about the details.

[baursak]

As far as I know Trudeau government already repealed it.

[jpdaigle]

You are thinking of Bill C-6, to repeal the changes from bill C-24. Although it passed over a year ago, it was referred to Senate Committee last December and since then, status hasn't been updated.

So "repealed" is premature, as C-6 still doesn't have any announced target date for entering in effect.