Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[NAFTA] Renegotiation

1567911

Posts

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    The Canadian-US talks on NAFTA have just gone very badly because Trump.

    https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html
    WASHINGTON – High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.

    In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”

    “Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal...I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.

    In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.

    “Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.
    Trudeau’s team believed the remarks to be accurate, and it saw them as confirmation of its suspicions that Trump’s team has not been truly planning to compromise. Earlier on Friday morning, before becoming aware of the remarks, a Canadian official told the Star the U.S. side was not offering “any movement” on the issues most important to Canada.

    So at the outset of the Friday meeting — which was expected to involve Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and senior Trudeau adviser Gerald Butts among others on the Canadian side and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and senior Trump aide Jared Kushner among others on the U.S. side — Trudeau’s officials unveiled the quotes to their U.S. counterparts.
    On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was “close,” that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has “no choice” but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted these remarks.

    But then he said, “Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.”

    “Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ‘Let’s make a deal. Please,’” he said.
    How is anybody going to argue an impasse is Canada being unreasonable?

    Basically this tells us that Trump thinks he can extort Canada and get whatever he wants. He still doesn't understand the situation at all except in mob-boss/sleazy real-estate-developer terms.

    “We’re America, Bitch”

    shrykeGennenalyse RuebenRchanenTicaldfjamYoutubeButtersRedTideStabbity Style
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?

    Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.

    Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<

    I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.

    Moridin889
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?

    Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.

    Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<

    I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.

    Eh, I wouldn't count on it. Who's going to enforce the rules?

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?

    Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.

    Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<

    I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.

    Eh, I wouldn't count on it. Who's going to enforce the rules?

    The same people doing it now

  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    edited August 2018

    Daniel Dale reports for the toronto star

    Same song from Trudeau, which is probably the correct move

    KetBra on
    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    shrykeRichyAridholBeNarwhalTubularLuggageGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse RuebenmrondeauRchanenSpace PicklePsykomaElldrenStabbity Style
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Enc wrote: »
    Off the record isn't a thing and never has been.

    Off the record is an informal agreement between a reporter and a source to not disclose a conversation. The traditional ethics of the practice are that it needs to be agreed upon ahead of time - an interviewee can’t say something then say its off-the-record like its take-backsies.

    Of course, being an informal agreement, the exact practice comes down to the reporter.

    From the Toronto Star:
    Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg. He deemed them off the record, and Bloomberg accepted his request not to reveal them.

    But the Star is not bound by any promises Bloomberg made to Trump. And the remarks immediately became a factor in the negotiations: Trudeau’s officials, who saw them as evidence for their previous suspicions that Trump’s team had not been bargaining in good faith, raised them at the beginning of a meeting with their U.S. counterparts on Friday morning, a U.S. source confirmed.

    The Star was not able to independently confirm the remarks with 100 per cent certainty, but the Canadian government is confident they are accurate.

    Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, who was one of the journalists in the room, did not dispute their authenticity. Nor did the White House....

    The unusual series of events began on Friday morning, when the Star asked Trudeau’s team, which was heading into a critical top-level 9 a.m. meeting with Trump’s team, for comment on the remarks.

    Bloomberg agreed to off the record, didn't publish them. Somehow the Toronto Star got them, and the Toronto Star isn't bound to stay off the record about it, at which point Bloomberg can then start publishing them too by referring to the Toronto Star's work.

    And, rather obviously, a Canadian news outlet doesn't really give a fuck about a US government official's asking to be off the record in reference to comments about Canada.

    hippofant on
    BeNarwhalKetBrafightinfilipinomonikerAngelHedgieFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenmrondeauDuke 2.0RchanentynicSkeithPsykomaCelloElldrenRedTideStabbity StyleHefflingMatev
  • CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
    Hmm, well, they've reached the deadline without a deal, so we'll see what happens next...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178

    But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
    I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Corlis wrote: »
    Hmm, well, they've reached the deadline without a deal, so we'll see what happens next...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178

    The deadline was mostly Trump's arbitrariness, I thought.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Phoenix-DDuke 2.0YoutubeElldren
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Corlis wrote: »
    Hmm, well, they've reached the deadline without a deal, so we'll see what happens next...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178

    The deadline was mostly Trump's arbitrariness, I thought.

    Yes and no. Mexico will have a new, left wing President soon. So there is a bit of a ticking clock since Congress requires notification on trade deals.

    Rchanen
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Chrystia Freeland was asked by reporters about Trump's comments multiple times, and each time she kept saying things to the effect of, “My negotiating counterparty is Ambassador Lighthizer.”

    The current negotiating stance appears to be to ignore Trump entirely and focus on the actual negotiators.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    SleepDuke 2.0ElldrenRichy
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    moniker wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Corlis wrote: »
    Hmm, well, they've reached the deadline without a deal, so we'll see what happens next...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178

    The deadline was mostly Trump's arbitrariness, I thought.

    Yes and no. Mexico will have a new, left wing President soon. So there is a bit of a ticking clock since Congress requires notification on trade deals.

    Still strikes me as a bit disingenuous for an incredibly unpopular Mexican president to try and jam through a trade deal as a lame duck at the 11th hour.

    Edit: Actually it seems Obrador's down with it? Not sure about the source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/mexican-president-elect-s-team-hails-new-trade-deal-with-us/article/530511

    hippofant on
    mrondeau
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Corlis wrote: »
    Hmm, well, they've reached the deadline without a deal, so we'll see what happens next...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178

    The next step is Trump attempts to close the bilateral NAFTA deal with Mexico and dares congress to argue he can't.
    "What the administration submitted to Congress in setting up the opportunity to use TPA, and the expedited process that TPA allows, contemplated a revision to a tri-party agreement,” Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey told reporters on Monday night. “So it's my understanding that this has to be a tri-party agreement.”

    Except nowhere in Lighthauser's letter does it appear to state that they intend to reach a tri-lateral agreement. They requested, and were granted, permission to fast track a renegotiation of NAFTA, so I expect there to be a fight over what "renegotiate NAFTA" means.

    Fake edit: Oh? Unless Obrador is down. The urgency was that they have to notify Congress today, or the 90 window would mean Obrador could just refuse to honor anything Nieto agreed to.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Oh, a twist:



    He threads the needle and announces he will go ahead with a bi-maybe-tri-lateral agreement; if they're in to it.

    Notably "enter a trade agreement" not "revise NAFTA," curious if that's legally relevant.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    So I think it's safe to say this week of attempted negotiation was a bunch of bullshit that presently isn't going anywhere.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    YoutubeElldrenGennenalyse RuebenRedTide
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Oh, a twist:



    He threads the needle and announces he will go ahead with a bi-maybe-tri-lateral agreement; if they're in to it.

    Notably "enter a trade agreement" not "revise NAFTA," curious if that's legally relevant.

    Menage a Québécois

    moniker on
    Monsieur TFoolOnTheHillSkeith
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    I feel like the odds are high that, before this is all over, we'll go through all of this incredibly stupid nonsense again, just with the words 'Canada' and 'Mexico' switched. Regardless of Canada's actual stance on any of it.

    TubularLuggage on
    Fencingsax
  • HeraldSHeraldS Registered User regular
    Two things:

    1) MLO (Obrador, new Mexican President) is okay w/ this going through on someone else's watch. That way he can take credit if it works or bash it if it doesn't. And he doesn't have to negotiate w/ Trump. Win-win.

    2) What Lighthizer asked for as far as fast-track authority matters, but the real issue here is what the new two party deal would do to NAFTA. Changing NAFTA requires congressional approval. At the moment it doesn't sound like Congress is interested in eviscerating NAFTA and replacing it with with whatever the new deal is.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, I was about to mention that unless Canada and Mexico scrap NAFTA. Not sure what they have to do to make that happen, it just isn't going anywhere. I'm sure Trump, being the stupid rat fucker that he is, will try to unilaterally nix it because he's a petty piece of shit. This will result in both a legal challenge, which I'm pretty sure will see his side get crushed and likely a rather negative jolt to the economy.

    I doubt this Senate has the required votes to neuter NAFTA and that seems to be where Trump wants to go, probably something his shit buddy Putin wants. So that's dead on arrival. I'm surprised that Mexico and Canada don't tell Trump to eat shit on this because they are perfectly fine with the current NAFTA and it's a massive fucking waste of their time to renegotiate with a rat fucker like Trump. Seeing how Trump isn't interested in a good faith approach and doesn't even seem interested in what beneficial to the US, so what ever treaty he is willing to sigh, won't be singable given enough Senators in the US Senate, will tell Trump to fuck right off.

    YoutubeElldren
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    AMLO wants things that Trump can offer, for example, wouldn't be the first Latin American president to try to negotiate a way to end the War on Drugs with an US president.

    (Still remember when the previous Colombian president Santos tried with Obama. Guess what happened.)

    TryCatcher on
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    So how much of the current negotiation difficulties is Trump pushing for things that only benefit highly specific people with access to him, and how much is Trump just wanting the negotiations to be the others just giving him everything he wants without giving anything back?

    I understand there may be overlap on this, but I was wondering which is the bigger driving force.

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    Sure, but you could say that about literally anything.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    monikerFencingsaxshrykeButterstynicPsykomaForarStabbity StyleSkeith
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    It's the pure distilled Id of the blue collar american right there.

    YoutubemonikerFencingsaxKetBraSleep
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I know it's not objective reasoning, but I kinda feel like if you're going to keep calling it NAFTA you should be obliged to include the largest land mass in NA.

    ArbitraryDescriptormonikerFencingsaxtynicGaddezDuke 2.0Gennenalyse RuebenStabbity StyleKetBraKayne Red RobeSkeithSleep
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    That's great, he Pin numbered it.

    The next question is whether he thinks it's applied to actual vats. I need to get this into his teleprompter next time he's in cheese-country.

    "We make our cheese, the best cheese, nobody makes cheese like us, and we make it in these big beautiful vats. So when we send it up to Canada, they say hold on there, you have to pay the vat tax. And NAFTA just let's them do it! Worst deal ever."

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
    Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
    Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.

    He can't really do much without congressional support.

    And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.

    ButtersGnome-InterruptusDuke 2.0
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
    Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.

    He can't really do much without congressional support.

    And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.

    Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.

    Kayne Red Robe
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
    Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.

    He can't really do much without congressional support.

    And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.

    Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.

    It's a wee bit more complicated then that and he lacks the ability to directly change all the things NAFTA effects. Let alone to win any court cases on the issue, which are likely to get immediate stays.

    Buttersmoniker
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
    Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.

    He can't really do much without congressional support.

    And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.

    Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.

    It's a wee bit more complicated then that and he lacks the ability to directly change all the things NAFTA effects. Let alone to win any court cases on the issue, which are likely to get immediate stays.

    It'll be easier when we build a wall along the 49th parallel and make Canada pay for it.

    Youtube
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    mrondeauYoutube
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.

    That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?

    Al_wat
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    I thought NAFTA was bad because dey (Mexico) took our jerbs

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.

    That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?

    Why are we/Trump hurting the US just to spite Canada?

    GaddezshrykemrondeauhippofantQuidKetBraPreacherSkeithFencingsax
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.

    That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?

    Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    MorganVmrondeauhippofantQuidKetBraForarHefflingSkeithButtersFencingsaxMatev
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Like strictly speaking we don't have to ship albertan oil to Texas. China would be ecstatic to get it shipped to their door even if they had to refine it themselves.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    mrondeauYoutube
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like strictly speaking we don't have to ship albertan oil to Texas. China would be ecstatic to get it shipped to their door even if they had to refine it themselves.

    Getting it to China would require a pipeline from Alberta through BC to some Pacific coast shipping facilities. BC wants neither of those things.

    sig.gif
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Like strictly speaking we don't have to ship albertan oil to Texas. China would be ecstatic to get it shipped to their door even if they had to refine it themselves.

    Getting it to China would require a pipeline from Alberta through BC to some Pacific coast shipping facilities. BC wants neither of those things.

    My point is that the US shouldn't be entitled to our resources by default when they're clearly negotiating in bad faith.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    mrondeauYoutube
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.

    That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?

    Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.

    And this is basically the point of Trump's "negotiations".

    Trade deal gives Canada $X dollars. Trade deal gives the US $Y dollars. Trump demands a percentage decrease in X in favor of a percentage increase in Y, or he cancels everything.

    So Canada's options are either "We accept your blackmail proposal, when can we expect the next demand?" or goes "Fuck it, if you're not gonna play fair, then we'll take the zero. Come back when you're willing to not be an asshole."

    Sometimes you need to go "Fuck it" in the short term, if you want to do what's best for your country in the long term when you're being bullied.

    mrondeauGaddezDuke 2.0RichymonikerBeNarwhalXaquinQanamilForarHefflingRMS OceanicV1mFencingsaxMatev
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.

    That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?

    Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.

    And this is basically the point of Trump's "negotiations".

    Trade deal gives Canada $X dollars. Trade deal gives the US $Y dollars. Trump demands a percentage decrease in X in favor of a percentage increase in Y, or he cancels everything.

    So Canada's options are either "We accept your blackmail proposal, when can we expect the next demand?" or goes "Fuck it, if you're not gonna play fair, then we'll take the zero. Come back when you're willing to not be an asshole."

    Sometimes you need to go "Fuck it" in the short term, if you want to do what's best for your country in the long term when you're being bullied.

    More generally, if a country acts like it's your enemy, act like it's your enemy.

    YoutubeBeNarwhalMorganVDisrupterKetBraHefflingGaddezButtersFencingsaxMatev
Sign In or Register to comment.