djsp

As good as that would be and as much as I desire it, my impression is that too many of them are trapped in a disinformation bubble to realize what and who is actually causing their problems. Some might, like the former Republican who shot at Trump and the veteran who blew up a Cybertruck, if I understood their motivation correctly, but I doubt such incidents will ever reach such a scale that Republicans reverse their entrenched stance on gun ownership.

Trudeau did adopt some of Trump's lingo when addressing him –by his forename, as you point out–, using "big" several times and referring to some treaty they negotiated as a "deal". He also slowed down, as if talking to someone with impaired understanding. Finally, Trudeau delivered this gem:

Now, it's not in my habit to agree with the Wall Street Journal, but Donald, they point out that, even though you're a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do.

— starting at 10:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT_ePmJyIcw

It was brilliant; out in plain sight for anyone with mild linguistic skills yet too subtle for the Trump base to grasp any of it.

I think Trumpism does not need to take away guns thanks to the correlation between Trumpism and gun ownership. Why would they disarm those who support them and carry out their wishes with a degree of plausible deniability, as in January 6th?

To my knowledge, intelligence gathering is one of the capabilities for which Ukraine and, indeed, all non-US members of NATO depend on the United States the most, and one which they can less readily ramp up than the production of military hardware and materiel. This latest move is, perhaps, an even bigger blow to a fair and durable peace than the recent suspension of US military aid.

I dislike this as much as everyone else, but… Would you give us a "/s" or some other indication of sarcasm? Some people assert what you wrote –or similar things– unironically.