4 ms·

> Trudeau doesn't need the midterms -- Republicans in both houses are strongly on the "Canadian" side, as are the Democrats. There are plenty of republicans an

> Trudeau doesn't need the midterms -- Republicans in both houses are strongly on the "Canadian" side, as are the Democrats. There are plenty of republicans and democrats who are against canada. Especially in the important midwest region ( which won Trump the election ). Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA. I wouldn't confuse anti-trumpism with pro-canadianism. You can be against trump and canada. > His outsized ego and inability to listen to reason has led to this remarkable situation where he is "playing tough" with one of the few nations that the US has a trade balance/surplus. This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html If we had a trade surplus with canada, don't you think it would be canada demanding changes to the trade deal? > Trump's presidency is rapidly unraveling. If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump? Why did south korea agree to a trade deal with Trump a few months ago? > He can neither sign a new trade agreement, or cancel an existing one, without congress. Sure. But he has presidential powers that could prove very punitive for canada. Our economy is 8X larger than canada and mexico combined. The US economy accounts for nearly 90% of NAFTA. Instead of being emotionally led by cable news, look at the data.

endorphone 8y ago
>This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades. A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years. The dairy thing is simply incredible -- the US sells 3x more dairy to Canada than the reverse, and that is the whole point of supply management (that it only produces enough for domestic demand). Somehow the clueless hordes have been raised into a mob by some guy talking about tariffs in a market that they already win. And if Canada drops supply management, the US would need to drop the massive agricultural subsidies and we know there is zero chance of that. >Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA. Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment. It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable. Mexico will still have a $100B surplus, China a $500B surplus, but rah rah rah something about dairy. Further, I said the Canadian side in quotes -- they're aren't pro-Canada, they're pro good relationships, fair trade, not trying to win some cheap concession now for personal power, realize that trade is not zero-sum, etc. In any rational analysis, Trump's behavior is boorish, self-destructive, profoundly ignorant and motivated entirely by ego and not the best actions for the US. >If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump? How is that a counter-point? But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it. Trump, and his sad jealousy of Trudeau, made him refocus on Canada, and Mexico (with a closing on $100B trade surplus) got to laugh to the bank. Of course they'd sign that.
- liftbigweights 8y ago
  > A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years. I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about? > Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment. No. It was also anti-canada. Especially with the midwest states. Bernie Sanders had a lot of support in the north and midwest states amongst democrats because he targeted canada. > It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable. It's remarkable how trump and hillary supporters are so easily swayed. That's why I said people should stop being emotionally manipulated by cable news. > How is that a counter-point? If trump's president is unraveling, don't you think mexico and south korea would have just waited it out? > But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it. That doesn't make any sense. Mexico didn't want to renegotiate. They had nothing they wanted. Mexico and canada specifically said NAFTA was perfect the way it was and that they would never renegotiate. > Of course they'd sign that. Sign something they never wanted to sign? What about south korea? Did they also get a good deal? Using your logic, why didn't mexico, canada and south korea demand to renegotiate so that they can get "good deals"? Since mexico got a good deal, should we praise trump for helping mexico? Does that make Trump a generous person? Or do we have twist everything trump does to further an agenda? Or is it possible to look at things objectively or rationally? But one thing we can agree on is how the trump supporters and also his detractors are so emotionally swayed. Wish everyone would just stay away from cable news. It's just as bad as facebook.
  - endorphone 8y ago
    "Mexico and canada specifically said NAFTA was perfect the way it was and that they would never renegotiate." LOL. No, Mexico and Canada didn't "specifically" say that, and such is a ridiculous claim. Canada had a huge list of proposed NAFTA modernizations at the ready. Canada has been a very willing partner in renegotiation until it turned out that the US side was entirely in bad faith. Out of which bullshit-hole did you pull that ridiculous claim? "No. It was also anti-canada. Especially with the midwest states" Given that most midwestern states rely heavily on Canadian trade, no, it wasn't. Wisconsin dairy farmers were swayed into thinking Canada was their problem, but that is a tiny, tiny proportion. Just to be clear -- Trump has threatened congress, and overwhelmingly US congressional and senate reps have stated that they will not accept a NAFTA without Canada, to the point that Trump has petulantly said that he will just cancel the whole thing (which he can't do, but he has illusions that he is king). How does this indicate this anti-Canada sentiment you imagine? "I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about?" If he is an imbecile, sure? I mean, he is, but aside from that it's like saying that there's a soybean imbalance so throw it all away. It is profoundly stupid. "If trump's president is unraveling, don't you think mexico and south korea would have just waited it out?" Absolutely not -- they got what they wanted. Trump is desperately trying to get a Pyrrhic win out of Canada before what is poised to be a devastating mid-term for him, and some serious legal troubles. Canada's best bet is to just walk away, which effectively they've done (note that Canada didn't meet Trump's Friday deadline, and there is effectively zero chance of a deal because Canada will not change dairy, and will not change the ITC process).

endorphone 8y ago

>This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades. A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years. The dairy thing is simply incredible -- the US sells 3x more dairy to Canada than the reverse, and that is the whole point of supply management (that it only produces enough for domestic demand). Somehow the clueless hordes have been raised into a mob by some guy talking about tariffs in a market that they already win. And if Canada drops supply management, the US would need to drop the massive agricultural subsidies and we know there is zero chance of that. >Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA. Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment. It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable. Mexico will still have a $100B surplus, China a $500B surplus, but rah rah rah something about dairy. Further, I said the Canadian side in quotes -- they're aren't pro-Canada, they're pro good relationships, fair trade, not trying to win some cheap concession now for personal power, realize that trade is not zero-sum, etc. In any rational analysis, Trump's behavior is boorish, self-destructive, profoundly ignorant and motivated entirely by ego and not the best actions for the US. >If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump? How is that a counter-point? But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it. Trump, and his sad jealousy of Trudeau, made him refocus on Canada, and Mexico (with a closing on $100B trade surplus) got to laugh to the bank. Of course they'd sign that.

liftbigweights 8y ago
> A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years. I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about? > Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment. No. It was also anti-canada. Especially with the midwest states. Bernie Sanders had a lot of support in the north and midwest states amongst democrats because he targeted canada. > It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable. It's remarkable how trump and hillary supporters are so easily swayed. That's why I said people should stop being emotionally manipulated by cable news. > How is that a counter-point? If trump's president is unraveling, don't you think mexico and south korea would have just waited it out? > But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it. That doesn't make any sense. Mexico didn't want to renegotiate. They had nothing they wanted. Mexico and canada specifically said NAFTA was perfect the way it was and that they would never renegotiate. > Of course they'd sign that. Sign something they never wanted to sign? What about south korea? Did they also get a good deal? Using your logic, why didn't mexico, canada and south korea demand to renegotiate so that they can get "good deals"? Since mexico got a good deal, should we praise trump for helping mexico? Does that make Trump a generous person? Or do we have twist everything trump does to further an agenda? Or is it possible to look at things objectively or rationally? But one thing we can agree on is how the trump supporters and also his detractors are so emotionally swayed. Wish everyone would just stay away from cable news. It's just as bad as facebook.
- endorphone 8y ago
  "Mexico and canada specifically said NAFTA was perfect the way it was and that they would never renegotiate." LOL. No, Mexico and Canada didn't "specifically" say that, and such is a ridiculous claim. Canada had a huge list of proposed NAFTA modernizations at the ready. Canada has been a very willing partner in renegotiation until it turned out that the US side was entirely in bad faith. Out of which bullshit-hole did you pull that ridiculous claim? "No. It was also anti-canada. Especially with the midwest states" Given that most midwestern states rely heavily on Canadian trade, no, it wasn't. Wisconsin dairy farmers were swayed into thinking Canada was their problem, but that is a tiny, tiny proportion. Just to be clear -- Trump has threatened congress, and overwhelmingly US congressional and senate reps have stated that they will not accept a NAFTA without Canada, to the point that Trump has petulantly said that he will just cancel the whole thing (which he can't do, but he has illusions that he is king). How does this indicate this anti-Canada sentiment you imagine? "I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about?" If he is an imbecile, sure? I mean, he is, but aside from that it's like saying that there's a soybean imbalance so throw it all away. It is profoundly stupid. "If trump's president is unraveling, don't you think mexico and south korea would have just waited it out?" Absolutely not -- they got what they wanted. Trump is desperately trying to get a Pyrrhic win out of Canada before what is poised to be a devastating mid-term for him, and some serious legal troubles. Canada's best bet is to just walk away, which effectively they've done (note that Canada didn't meet Trump's Friday deadline, and there is effectively zero chance of a deal because Canada will not change dairy, and will not change the ITC process).