- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,623
- Reaction score
- 22,930
- Points
- 113
This is hilarious, and not entirely inaccurate. Mr. Super negotiator has gotten played. For as much as he talks about making deals, he hasn’t made that many worth mentioning.
Iran
- Thread starter BLITZ
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,278
- Reaction score
- 34,449
- Points
- 113
- Location
- $62.75 would help feed Paxton
His tariff threats in the first term resulted in some very good concessions from China, the European Union, and Canada. The Middle East "deals" stink on ice. Trump had no reason to launch attacks on Iran - NONE - and given that he campaigned and was elected on "No More Wars" our present circumstance is 100% unacceptable.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,576
- Reaction score
- 18,030
- Points
- 113
eh?
Key developments in Canada-U.S. trade over the period include:No New Trade Pacts: Rather than negotiating a new trade deal, Canada has been focused on navigating tariff disputes and preparing for the mandatory six-year review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Border Security Concessions: To combat Trump's proposed tariffs, Canada announced a CA$1.3 billion border security investment to alleviate U.S. concerns regarding illicit fentanyl and illegal immigration.
Escalating Tariffs: Throughout 2025, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on various Canadian goods—including steel, aluminum, autos, and softwood lumber. These tariffs led Canada to pursue broader trade diversifications in the Indo-Pacific and globally.
Supreme Court Invalidation: A significant portion of the U.S. tariffs implemented on Canadian goods were invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling in early 2026, which ended the broadest 25% tariff sweeps but kept tensions high heading into the USMCA Review 2026.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,278
- Reaction score
- 34,449
- Points
- 113
- Location
- $62.75 would help feed Paxton
Confluence, the tariffs were designed to do two things: Force foreign nations to lower their tariffs or face reprisal, and when the tariffs were implemented, to promote manufacturing in the United States. The undeniable fact is that since the US had a massive trade deficit with the nations subject to the tariffs, the end game was never a winner for the foreign nations - never. They needed the US markets much, much more than the United States needed their exports.
The trade deficit with Canada is driven by oil and gas imports. The tariff promoted energy production in the United States. The broader result was a positive increase in manufacturing in the United States the past two-plus years.
Further, as you pointed out, Canada is spending significantly more on border security because of the tariff and tariff threats. So the idea that the tariffs and tariff threats did not produce significant manufacturing increases in the United States is wrong; the tariffs and tariff threats forced dozens of nations to starting paying for their own defense rather than simply having American taxpayers foot the bill; and the tariffs and tariff threats led directly to a massive downturn in illegal immigration and a border that actually means something.
The crescendo of tARiFfS BaD was always a comment about tariffs imposed by the United States against other nations, never the tariffs imposed on United States exports.
The trade deficit with Canada is driven by oil and gas imports. The tariff promoted energy production in the United States. The broader result was a positive increase in manufacturing in the United States the past two-plus years.
Further, as you pointed out, Canada is spending significantly more on border security because of the tariff and tariff threats. So the idea that the tariffs and tariff threats did not produce significant manufacturing increases in the United States is wrong; the tariffs and tariff threats forced dozens of nations to starting paying for their own defense rather than simply having American taxpayers foot the bill; and the tariffs and tariff threats led directly to a massive downturn in illegal immigration and a border that actually means something.
The crescendo of tARiFfS BaD was always a comment about tariffs imposed by the United States against other nations, never the tariffs imposed on United States exports.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,576
- Reaction score
- 18,030
- Points
- 113
Canadian oil is sold at a discount to the US. That would be the opposite of a tariff.Confluence, the tariffs were designed to do two things: Force foreign nations to lower their tariffs or face reprisal, and when the tariffs were implemented, to promote manufacturing in the United States. The undeniable fact is that since the US had a massive trade deficit with the nations subject to the tariffs, the end game was never a winner for the foreign nations - never. They needed the US markets much, much more than the United States needed their exports.
The trade deficit with Canada is driven by oil and gas imports. The tariff promoted energy production in the United States. The broader result was a positive increase in manufacturing in the United States the past two-plus years.
View attachment 17698
Further, as you pointed out, Canada is spending significantly more on border security because of the tariff and tariff threats. So the idea that the tariffs and tariff threats did not produce significant manufacturing increases in the United States is wrong; the tariffs and tariff threats forced dozens of nations to starting paying for their own defense rather than simply having American taxpayers foot the bill; and the tariffs and tariff threats led directly to a massive downturn in illegal immigration and a border that actually means something.
The crescendo of tARiFfS BaD was always a comment about tariffs imposed by the United States against other nations, never the tariffs imposed on United States exports.
How does that factor into your analysis?
You were just factually incorrect on your point re: Canada and seem unable to accept that. Oh well.