I do not have a reply for the entire topic but one of the things often under-represented within US politics is the role of commander-in-chief. It has become a phrase that is more buzzwordy than real discussion. The result is the lost perspective.

From the US political point of view, talking about the military role of the President has different connotations. It could be the connotation of putting American citizens at risk, putting soldiers in a non-mandatory service army in battle, deciding to intervene in civil wars, or deciding whether or not to kill a foreign person. Drone strikes that kill foreign persons are basically accepted within US politics.

For the rest of the world, the impacts of all of these decisions are far greater. Yeah, the Iraq war vote was costly and cost soldiers' lives. But far, far, far, far more Iraqi citizens died because of that vote. The cost to Iraq was substantially larger than the US.

When someone like Donald Trump is talking killing terrorists' families or torture, significant portions of the world are listening, they do care, and they are terrified. Why? Because when American political leaders decide to kill non-Americans, non-Americans really do die. It's not theoretical to them. It isn't a commentary they reply with on the internet but never actually see the real consequences of it in the way that it is just commentary to millions of Americns.

So, sure, Canadians may get needlessly involved in following American politics. But there are many foreigners that follow it and consumed by it because it actually has real repercussions on their lives and future. It is hard to suggest they should be quiet.

That said, it is illegal for them to be making donations.