He says he wants to annex Canada, he has been consistent on that point for a while, and nothing can stop him if he wants to, so the main alternative is that he simply changes his mind.

Like the rest of us, he may change his mind at any moment. What's most likely to prompt that in his case is doubt that his present course is headed for success as he defines it. Perhaps that's generically not all that different from anyone else. The problem, as his behavior suggests, is that he defines success from a thoroughly egocentric perspective. What we need in leadership is vision of harmonious evolution from present to future; not a greedy grab for as much power and loot as might be within reach.

It's not as though our objectives as a nation have always been beyond reproach. At the outset legitimate voters were regarded as white, land-owning adult males. It took a Civil War and a hundred years beyond that to formally shuck the racial aspect. Women acquired their right to vote little more than a hundred years ago – well within the ever-breaking wave of presently aggregating humanity.

I'd not been aware of the prior stabs at acquiring Canada. Those would surely evoke disdain among most who are aware of them; most acutely Canadians.

Tom