Experiment: Can concensus be achieved through understanding in 2025?

[OlNate]

The purpose of this thread is to explore the question in the title. This discussion began in another thread, and @trixare4kids has agreed to join me here to continue it, so we can have it in a place with enhanced moderation, not to mention not take over the thread we started in...hehe...

The topic of this discussion is Trump's strategies and tactics in regards to Canada. Because why not start with the one topic that is sure to get a Canadian to forget his manners for this experiment.

The reason we decided to move this chat is because the discussion we were having was completely outside of the scripts and narratives that seem to dominate the general debate. I think it's safe to say that neither Trix or I are celebrated for excessively pulling punches, we pretty much always find ourselves on opposite ends of issues, but in this case not only were we able to remain basically chill, but an understanding was being established, which I believe is the first step to consensus. Given that consensus across "sides" appears to be considered so impossible as to not be worth the effort to even try, this conversation stood out as an exception to that. I find exceptions way more interesting than the predictable back and forth that the majority of debate has become.

While we will be prioritizing finishing the conversation that began between the two of us, I'd invite anyone to join in, only asking that you respect the spirit of this experiment and avoid the usual shit talk and pile ons that are fun that can be had in pretty much every other thread...hehe...

I'll start by posting what we've discussed so far for our reference, and we'll continue from there. For my part, I will not be going off about source bias or factuality, because the goal here is not to defeat an opponent, but to understand where they're coming from, and what is influencing their perspective, in order to craft responses that resonate with their way of thinking rather than ramming my way of thinking down their throat.

Sorry for the long prologue, I really want to give this chat a chance without it turning into a gong show from the peanut gallery.

 

[OlNate]

This chat began with @trixare4kids asking me two questions:

What exactly do you think Trump objects to regarding your country as far as his threats of tariffs go?

I might need clarification on the question, I'm answering with the assumption you mean why is Trump threatening us with the 25% tariff.

I honestly have no idea.

He cites issues with fentanyl and illegal immigrants crossing into America from Canada, but your border security is not our responsibility, and the amount of fentanyl that comes into America from Canada is statistically insignificant compared to what comes from Mexico, India and China, yet Canada is facing the same tariffs as Mexico.

So... if these are real objections, then he's displaying a gross amount of ignorance in terms of what's actually happening.

But that's my understanding of what he's telling people he objects to.

I've already mentioned to you that Trump uses the threat of tariffs to get what he wants. What do you think he wants?

This is a deeper question, to which I can only give theories. Wording it what do you think he wants was appropriate.

One scenario is that he is attempting to do what he says - get the border under control and stop the flow of fentanyl, and that's it. If this were the case, then he's demonstrating a massive lack of competency, given that we would have been able to see value in working this out and gone along with it without the need to be threatened. So...not sure about that.

Another scenario is that he is creating a means where he can generate revenue by forcing us to do what no government in your history could do, which is secure your border. A country that is 1/10th your size is obviously not going to be able to do this, so the tariffs will "justifiably" stay in place. He will then have a revenue source that is not technically a tax, but will be passed onto the American public in the cost of goods and services that are still cheaper than what you could do in country, while also having someone to blame for why he can't secure the border.

Another scenario is that he's actually serious about all this expansionism he's been going off about, and is looking for a way to make it happen. Combining statistically baseless allegations of uncontrolled cross border drug trafficking with the EO that designates cartels as terrorist organizations gives him the ability to move the military into Mexico and Canada, say in response to the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and the Hell's Angels up here, taking full control of North America under the premise of fighting terrorism. You guys were in Afghanistan for 20 years, and they were halfway around the world.

Another scenario is that he just wants to push us around and validate his tough guy image.

So...what do I think he wants? I dunno. The problem is that his tack, his demeanor, his approach, and the things he says inspires all of these scenarios, and it's not been all that easy to say "Oh, that couldn't possibly happen" lately.

 

[trixare4kids]

The purpose of this thread is to explore the question in the title. This discussion began in another thread, and @trixare4kids has agreed to join me here to continue it, so we can have it in a place with enhanced moderation, not to mention not take over the thread we started in...hehe...

The topic of this discussion is Trump's strategies and tactics in regards to Canada. Because why not start with the one topic that is sure to get a Canadian to forget his manners for this experiment.

The reason we decided to move this chat is because the discussion we were having was completely outside of the scripts and narratives that seem to dominate the general debate. I think it's safe to say that neither Trix or I are celebrated for excessively pulling punches, we pretty much always find ourselves on opposite ends of issues, but in this case not only were we able to remain basically chill, but an understanding was being established, which I believe is the first step to consensus. Given that consensus across "sides" appears to be considered so impossible as to not be worth the effort to even try, this conversation stood out as an exception to that. I find exceptions way more interesting than the predictable back and forth that the majority of debate has become.

While we will be prioritizing finishing the conversation that began between the two of us, I'd invite anyone to join in, only asking that you respect the spirit of this experiment and avoid the usual shit talk and pile ons that are fun that can be had in pretty much every other thread...hehe...

I'll start by posting what we've discussed so far for our reference, and we'll continue from there. For my part, I will not be going off about source bias or factuality, because the goal here is not to defeat an opponent, but to understand where they're coming from, and what is influencing their perspective, in order to craft responses that resonate with their way of thinking rather than ramming my way of thinking down their throat.

Sorry for the long prologue, I really want to give this chat a chance without it turning into a gong show from the peanut gallery.

Maybe a wet noodle or two, or a maple syrup bottle tap to the skull, but no gongs allowed. I promise.

At any rate, what a nice idea to post our conversation that otherwise would have been lost in the general debate political forum.
You know what they say? Build it and they will come. It's not like we're charging admission or anything. I look forward to more participants to this great idea for a thread.
Thank you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

One thing Trump often mentions is the trade imbalance between the US and some other country. IIRC, the number of ‘terror list’ immigrants entering the US is higher on our northern border.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Have you considered Trump is just an asshole?

I am being serious. There is the possibility he has no reason for any actions he takes other than some perverse pleasure he derives from them in the moment.

Power. Cruelty. Malicious torture. He just enjoys it.

 

[trixare4kids]

This chat began with @trixare4kids asking me two questions:



I might need clarification on the question, I'm answering with the assumption you mean why is Trump threatening us with the 25% tariff.

I've mentioned to you before that Trump was probably trolling Trudeau. Yes, presidents and prime ministers aren't above being petty.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but before Trump became 47, Trudeau spent his time trolling Trump. Please read the article because it makes the next point I will make.

LILLEY: Trudeau insulted Trump for years, now places are reversed

It's not like Trudeau wasn't warned, including by Liberals, that attacking Trump for his own political gain was a bad idea.

torontosun.com

So by now, you understand that this trolling thing goes both ways after reading the above article. Juvenile? Yes, and Trump enjoyed having the last troll with Trudeau. He humiliated him pretty good. He was joking about making Canada the 51st state.

I don't think Trump was ever serious about lumping our good ally, Canada with Mexico. He meant to insult Trudeau. I think the entire commentary that Canadians found to be harsh was Trump trolling Trudeau back, hence why he included them in with Mexico. That was the ultimate troll. One thing Canadians should understand, and I'm not defending him, is that what went around came around. Troll Trump like Trudeau enjoyed doing, ... well, Trump doesn't grovel for an apology but will get right back at Trudeau. Your country will be better off without Trudeau. He brought this on your country by himself.

I do not think there will be tariffs. Trudeau poked the bear and the bear fought back. Shame on Trudeau. I don't see the real need for tariffs. Your borders are fairly secure, and we have a lot of border control helping to keep drugs from entering.

I do think Trump preemptively is giving warning to a renegotiation of the trade deal. I know he wants more jobs to come back here, but it's a stupid move to threaten tariffs, and as I wrote above, don't think he was seriously about much of what he threatened. I don't think Trump wants anything but for other nations to pay more toward NATO. That's a big thing with him. That's it, OlNate, frenemy. Hope you got something from all this. (all my edits are done)

I honestly have no idea.

He cites issues with fentanyl and illegal immigrants crossing into America from Canada, but your border security is not our responsibility, and the amount of fentanyl that comes into America from Canada is statistically insignificant compared to what comes from Mexico, India and China, yet Canada is facing the same tariffs as Mexico.

So... if these are real objections, then he's displaying a gross amount of ignorance in terms of what's actually happening.

But that's my understanding of what he's telling people he objects to.



This is a deeper question, to which I can only give theories. Wording it what do you think he wants was appropriate.

One scenario is that he is attempting to do what he says - get the border under control and stop the flow of fentanyl, and that's it. If this were the case, then he's demonstrating a massive lack of competency, given that we would have been able to see value in working this out and gone along with it without the need to be threatened. So...not sure about that.

Another scenario is that he is creating a means where he can generate revenue by forcing us to do what no government in your history could do, which is secure your border. A country that is 1/10th your size is obviously not going to be able to do this, so the tariffs will "justifiably" stay in place. He will then have a revenue source that is not technically a tax, but will be passed onto the American public in the cost of goods and services that are still cheaper than what you could do in country, while also having someone to blame for why he can't secure the border.

had to cut some of your post. See my sad face.
Bear with, I am correcting the link once again. FIXED!

 

[trixare4kids]

Have you considered Trump is just an asshole?

I am being serious. There is the possibility he has no reason for any actions he takes other than some perverse pleasure he derives from them in the moment.

Power. Cruelty. Malicious torture. He just enjoys it.

If you follow the link in my post six, you'll probably admit that the cruelty between PM Trudeau and President Trump went both ways. They could both be assholes. Trudeau enjoyed trolling Trump just as much as Trump enjoyed trolling and getting back at Trudeau. I am being serious. Read the entire link. Unless you agree it was okay for Trudeau to do a hard troll on our president. In that case, nothing left for us to say to one another but to disagree.

There is no logical excuse to be made for either one of them especially when their vindictive silly trolls hurt both of these two countries images. Shame on them both. I truly hope you will eventually see that they both share the blame. Thank you for considering my pov.

 

[OlNate]

{snip, cuz we're wordy...lol} Hope you got something from all this. (all my edits are done)

I want to state what you already know: at this point in the game, while I don't have the massive hatred that some Canadians feel for Trudeau, I'm very happy that he is done as our PM.

In terms of a rebuttal, or perhaps simply clarification, there is one key difference between what Trudeau did and what Trump did, and it makes all the difference in the world - hell, maybe pointing it out may lead you to understand the anger from all us "uppity" Canucks that you see here.

The difference I see is that while Trudeau shared his opinion about Trump and his movement in an inflammatory way, he did not do anything to threaten or harm the American people over it, nor were any of his retalliatory tariffs tied to his personal feelings about Trump, but rather they were used for what tariffs are generally used for, which is to protect our economy, a response to unfair tariffs in the hopes to have them removed.

On the other hand, Trump's approach not only insults all Canadians, who are fiercely proud and protective of our sovereignty, but also puts forward threats that would hurt Canadians directly - ironically far more than they would ever hurt Trudeau, his money is secure and I'm thinking he's done with politics...hehe It's akin to someone being called an asshole in the playground, and then retaliating by going to the dude's house and setting it on fire with their entire family inside. Trudeau may have had a low opinion of the MAGA movement overall, but there's nothing you can point to that he did that hurt them any further than their pride - correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thing to remember is that this all started back in 2018, when Trump did his tariff thing the first time around. Tariffs that were widely criticized as being unfair and baseless. I mean, it was actually declared a matter of National Security, as if your long terms friends were suddenly some kind of threat. Adding injury to insult, a lot of folks, myself included, lost jobs over something that we simply couldn't understand because it couldn't be demonstrated.

And, at that point, the only shit Trudeau had talked was in 2017, when he made a comment about feminism and inclusivity being more of a priority in Canada than in America.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/justin-trudeau-criticizes-trump/

I find it difficult to justify the loss of my job, and the anxiety and struggle my family and I faced as a result, over that. In fact, I don't feel like anything was ever demonstrated to be a big enough problem to justify that. I'm sure that sentiment is felt in the majority of households impacted by the first round of tariffs, and the folks that care about them, and that resentment isn't going to go away in four short years, especially when Trump begins threatening us again before he's even in office for his second term. We already know what having to work through that chaos is about.

I agree with you, the dick measuring was ridiculous. Trudeau did not need to call you guys out to make himself look better, it was a stupid decision made to bolster his brand, without any thought given to the consequences of wounding a man like Donald Trump's pride. But it turns into something else when 40 million people are made to pay the price for that, in the form of, at best, serious economic uncertainty, at worst total economic chaos. I feel like you would agree that if these tariffs are enacted, which Trump has most recently said would be decided Feb 1 and therefore are not off the table, that would constitute something a little more extreme than trolling. Can I at least get an acknowledgement of that?

 

[OlNate]

One thing Trump often mentions is the trade imbalance between the US and some other country. IIRC, the number of ‘terror list’ immigrants entering the US is higher on our northern border.

So, in terms of the trade imbalance, I feel like this is an impossible thing for us to ever correct. Currently we sit at 6th place, in terms of having a trade deficit with you.

US Trade Deficit by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

That's not actually that bad, considering our population vs the countries you have bigger trade deficits with. There's only so much shit we can buy...hehe... and you guys benefit from getting our massive surplus of natural resources on the cheap. So, I'm not sure what Trump expects here, or what he's even pissed about, given the big picture.

In terms of terrorists crossing the border, we need to make one thing clear: our relationship is cooperative, not obligatory. We are not responsible for your border security, and the idea that Canada could ever be is ridiculous, given our relative size and resources.

That being said, securing the border is mutually beneficial. I don't want terrorists here anymore than you want them there, regardless to whether they're here to stay or on their way to you. In fact, we should be pissed at you for having your enemies stomping around our country to get to you...hehe...

The fact is that these tariffs were never necessary to get our buy in. It's really not that hard of a sell, and I'm sure that, given the nature of our relationship with Trump the last time around, this would have been looked at as a fantastic ice breaker.

One more factor to consider is that this is a new problem:

Terrorists Crossing the US Border? Rising Numbers Explained (1)

DHS maintains that the rise in terrorist watch list hits simply corresponds to the overall increase in border crossings and each encounter doesn’t actually represent a terrorist attempting to enter the US.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Again, working together on this is a no brainer, the tariff threats are completely unnecessary, and even have the potential to hurt the process, as where before being threatened we would have been working together with a partner and ally to resolve a new problem, and now we're just looking to avoid economic chaos.

 

[OlNate]

Have you considered Trump is just an asshole?

I am being serious. There is the possibility he has no reason for any actions he takes other than some perverse pleasure he derives from them in the moment.

Power. Cruelty. Malicious torture. He just enjoys it.

No, I don't think so, the stakes are too high for mere assholery to be the motive.

 

[trixare4kids]

I want to state what you already know: at this point in the game, while I don't have the massive hatred that some Canadians feel for Trudeau, I'm very happy that he is done as our PM.

In terms of a rebuttal, or perhaps simply clarification, there is one key difference between what Trudeau did and what Trump did, and it makes all the difference in the world - hell, maybe pointing it out may lead you to understand the anger from all us "uppity" Canucks that you see here.

The difference I see is that while Trudeau shared his opinion about Trump and his movement in an inflammatory way, he did not do anything to threaten or harm the American people over it, nor were any of his retalliatory tariffs tied to his personal feelings about Trump, but rather they were used for what tariffs are generally used for, which is to protect our economy, a response to unfair tariffs in the hopes to have them removed.

On the other hand, Trump's approach not only insults all Canadians, who are fiercely proud and protective of our sovereignty, but also puts forward threats that would hurt Canadians directly - ironically far more than they would ever hurt Trudeau, his money is secure and I'm thinking he's done with politics...hehe It's akin to someone being called an asshole in the playground, and then retaliating by going to the dude's house and setting it on fire with their entire family inside. Trudeau may have had a low opinion of the MAGA movement overall, but there's nothing you can point to that he did that hurt them any further than their pride - correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thing to remember is that this all started back in 2018, when Trump did his tariff thing the first time around. Tariffs that were widely criticized as being unfair and baseless. I mean, it was actually declared a matter of National Security, as if your long terms friends were suddenly some kind of threat. Adding injury to insult, a lot of folks, myself included, lost jobs over something that we simply couldn't understand because it couldn't be demonstrated.

And, at that point, the only shit Trudeau had talked was in 2017, when he made a comment about feminism and inclusivity being more of a priority in Canada than in America.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/justin-trudeau-criticizes-trump/

I find it difficult to justify the loss of my job, and the anxiety and struggle my family and I faced as a result, over that. In fact, I don't feel like anything was ever demonstrated to be a big enough problem to justify that. I'm sure that sentiment is felt in the majority of households impacted by the first round of tariffs, and the folks that care about them, and that resentment isn't going to go away in four short years, especially when Trump begins threatening us again before he's even in office for his second term. We already know what having to work through that chaos is about.

I agree with you, the dick measuring was ridiculous. Trudeau did not need to call you guys out to make himself look better, it was a stupid decision made to bolster his brand, without any thought given to the consequences of wounding a man like Donald Trump's pride. But it turns into something else when 40 million people are made to pay the price for that, in the form of, at best, serious economic uncertainty, at worst total economic chaos. I feel like you would agree that if these tariffs are enacted, which Trump has most recently said would be decided Feb 1 and therefore are not off the table, that would constitute something a little more extreme than trolling. Can I at least get an acknowledgement of that?

Of course, my friend. Of course, I will state this right now, actions have consequences. All the trolling, and the using of one another's countries to promote their own political careers is morally wrong. If I am wrong about the reasoning behind his threats, I'll feel even worse. You have my word on this. There is no reason to put tariffs on your country.

 

[trouble13]

So, in terms of the trade imbalance, I feel like this is an impossible thing for us to ever correct. Currently we sit at 6th place, in terms of having a trade deficit with you.

View attachment 67553223

US Trade Deficit by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

That's not actually that bad, considering our population vs the countries you have bigger trade deficits with. There's only so much shit we can buy...hehe... and you guys benefit from getting our massive surplus of natural resources on the cheap. So, I'm not sure what Trump expects here, or what he's even pissed about, given the big picture.

In terms of terrorists crossing the border, we need to make one thing clear: our relationship is cooperative, not obligatory. We are not responsible for your border security, and the idea that Canada could ever be is ridiculous, given our relative size and resources.

That being said, securing the border is mutually beneficial. I don't want terrorists here anymore than you want them there, regardless to whether they're here to stay or on their way to you. In fact, we should be pissed at you for having your enemies stomping around our country to get to you...hehe...

The fact is that these tariffs were never necessary to get our buy in. It's really not that hard of a sell, and I'm sure that, given the nature of our relationship with Trump the last time around, this would have been looked at as a fantastic ice breaker.

One more factor to consider is that this is a new problem:

View attachment 67553227

Terrorists Crossing the US Border? Rising Numbers Explained (1)

DHS maintains that the rise in terrorist watch list hits simply corresponds to the overall increase in border crossings and each encounter doesn’t actually represent a terrorist attempting to enter the US.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Again, working together on this is a no brainer, the tariff threats are completely unnecessary, and even have the potential to hurt the process, as where before being threatened we would have been working together with a partner and ally to resolve a new problem, and now we're just looking to avoid economic chaos.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic on this particular point. You think we should buy more stuff from you than you buy from us because we are bigger?

Think about this, if we enacted a 1 to 1 ratio with Canada we could focus some of our purchasing power in central America and give them less of an incentive to come here.

I was actually hopeful the Harris was going to come back with that recommendation when she was made the border czar. Not the Canada part but working toward creating a stronger trading partnership with Central America. Not that the politicians wouldn't screw it up

 

[OlNate]

I'm not sure if I follow your logic on this particular point. You think we should buy more stuff from you than you buy from us because we are bigger?

What you should do is buy from wherever makes sense. It's not about what you "should" buy, it's about what we "can" buy. There are 335 million of you, and 40 million of us. Who do you think can buy more toasters?

Think about this, if we enacted a 1 to 1 ratio with Canada we could focus some of our purchasing power in central America and give them less of an incentive to come here.

If that made financial and strategic sense, you'd be doing it already. Besides, they have different stuff in Central America than they have here. And the shipping costs, the cost of infrastructure, the political unrest... There's a reason we have been such good trade partners for such a long time. The trade deficit metric does not fully capture the benefits you enjoy through trade with Canada.

I was actually hopeful the Harris was going to come back with that recommendation when she was made the border czar. Not the Canada part but working toward creating a stronger trading partnership with Central America. Not that the politicians wouldn't screw it up

hehe...yeah, they do tend to do that.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, I don't think so, the stakes are too high for mere assholery to be the motive.

Trump is a simple man.


I'd also add that the stakes are not high for Trump, but everyone else that's impacted by his decisions, since he will not be impacted adversely. As evidence of this I'll cite the trade war with China, which resulted in an adverse effect on US farmers. Trump and his administration then had to use tax payer dollars to subsidize the issues caused by that trade battle.

 

[OlNate]

Of course, my friend. Of course, I will state this right now, actions have consequences. All the trolling, and the using of one another's countries to promote their own political careers is morally wrong. If I am wrong about the reasoning behind his threats, I'll feel even worse. You have my word on this. There is no reason to put tariffs on your country.

I just want to point out that I think this is all most Canadians want from the American public. I feel like there's always been a sense of having each other's back at the human level, outside of what politics entails. Acknowledging that maybe we're getting the shit end of the stick here goes a long way, as does caring enough to actually consider it with an open mind. Maybe telling your boy that, if you think so, would go further. This isn't really great for any of us.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

No, I don't think so, the stakes are too high for mere assholery to be the motive.

The stakes do not matter. If he is a hedonist, all he cares about is the moment. He is wholly unconcerned about any consequences. Certainly, any consequences that would happen to anyone other than himself.

It is also possible he is merely malevolent and is acting out for the purpose of deliberate cruelty but that sort of just the same thing, isn't it?

 

[OlNate]

The stakes do not matter. If he is a hedonist, all he cares about is the moment. He is wholly unconcerned about any consequences. Certainly, any consequences that would happen to anyone other than himself.

It is also possible he is merely malevolent and is acting out for the purpose of deliberate cruelty but that sort of just the same thing, isn't it?

Sup, Bok, thanks for joining the experiment.

So, with the goal of this experiment in mind, do you feel like this statement aids in furthering understanding in people who do not align with your way of thinking, or do you think it might put them on the defensive to where they spend their time raging against your speculative assessment of Trump, thereby missing the opportunity to reach a real understanding that could aid in consensus, despite differing ideologies?

Do you think there's another way to frame that to where it's less inflammatory (I know, tough these days when everything is inflammatory), and could lead to understanding?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, in terms of the trade imbalance, I feel like this is an impossible thing for us to ever correct. Currently we sit at 6th place, in terms of having a trade deficit with you.

View attachment 67553223

US Trade Deficit by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

That's not actually that bad, considering our population vs the countries you have bigger trade deficits with. There's only so much shit we can buy...hehe... and you guys benefit from getting our massive surplus of natural resources on the cheap. So, I'm not sure what Trump expects here, or what he's even pissed about, given the big picture.

In terms of terrorists crossing the border, we need to make one thing clear: our relationship is cooperative, not obligatory. We are not responsible for your border security, and the idea that Canada could ever be is ridiculous, given our relative size and resources.

That being said, securing the border is mutually beneficial. I don't want terrorists here anymore than you want them there, regardless to whether they're here to stay or on their way to you. In fact, we should be pissed at you for having your enemies stomping around our country to get to you...hehe...

The fact is that these tariffs were never necessary to get our buy in. It's really not that hard of a sell, and I'm sure that, given the nature of our relationship with Trump the last time around, this would have been looked at as a fantastic ice breaker.

One more factor to consider is that this is a new problem:

View attachment 67553227

Terrorists Crossing the US Border? Rising Numbers Explained (1)

DHS maintains that the rise in terrorist watch list hits simply corresponds to the overall increase in border crossings and each encounter doesn’t actually represent a terrorist attempting to enter the US.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Again, working together on this is a no brainer, the tariff threats are completely unnecessary, and even have the potential to hurt the process, as where before being threatened we would have been working together with a partner and ally to resolve a new problem, and now we're just looking to avoid economic chaos.

In other words, while there is data supporting Trump’s concern(s), you think Canada can simply ignore Trump’s concern(s) and Trump will do nothing.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Sup, Bok, thanks for joining the experiment.

So, with the goal of this experiment in mind, do you feel like this statement aids in furthering understanding in people who do not align with your way of thinking, or do you think it might put them on the defensive to where they spend their time raging against your speculative assessment of Trump, thereby missing the opportunity to reach a real understanding that could aid in consensus, despite differing ideologies?

My assessment of the current President through his actions should absolutely help people understand my way of thinking in order to gain consensus. I am making observations based on real events. I do not like to pretend Reality doesn't exist. From where I am sitting, there is no rational basis for his actions that could be seen as a benefit for the United States. If I am to take his actions as strategic as opposed to personal, then that means he is attempting to deliberately harm the United States as a nation. I am not sure I am ready to accept that he is doing that willingly as opposed to it being a mere by product of his own transitory desires.

Do you think there's another way to frame that to where it's less inflammatory (I know, tough these days when everything is inflammatory), and could lead to understanding?

I thought I was framing it in a way that wasn't inflammatory.

 

[OlNate]

In other words, while there is data supporting Trump’s concern(s), you think Canada can simply ignore Trump’s concern(s) and Trump will do nothing.

So, the purpose of this experiment is to create understanding, not win a debate. If you have a question, please feel free to ask it, but do not put words in my mouth, that tactic is designed to put people on the defensive and does not lend itself to real understanding.

(Don't worry, I'm a big boy, I am not offended by your phrasing, I'm just trying to keep the purpose of this thread in focus).

I will assume you meant to say "So, given that there is data supporting Trump's concerns, do you think Canada can simply ignore Trump's concern(s) and Trump will do nothing?"

To which I would reply that no one is ignorning anyone's concerns. It's simply a matter of realistic expectations. How do you figure that a country with 40 million people can achieve trade parity with a country with 325 million people?

I can only think of a few ways:

1) Drop our prices on everything and begin selling to America at a loss.

2) Abandon industries considered critical to national security, and buy exclusively from America.

3) Pay inflated prices for goods from America.

Obviously none of these are sustainable, and fall outside of what would be considered reasonable expectations.

The problem with judging our relationship based off of the trade deficit metric is that, as I've mentioned previously, it does not capture the entirety of the benefit you enjoy trading with us. Things like reduced shipping costs and the ability to do business in a politically stable country are the obvious ones. Much bigger than that, however, is the benefit you enjoy by having access to our massive surplus of natural resources and less expensive labor. These two factors drive massive savings for America, subsidizing your economy and delivering higher profit margins to your corporations.

While Trump focuses on something we cannot overcome due to our size, he ignores the benefits you guys get due to our size...hehe..

So, to answer your question about Trump doing nothing, well... I can tell you what he should do, according to the math and the statistics. But you'd have to explain to me why you think Trump would do something, given the above. Again, to keep this thread focussed, I'm not trying to beat you in a debate, I'm trying to understand your position, and help you understand mine, so that between us we can come up with something that makes sense to both of us.

 

[OlNate]

My assessment of the current President through his actions should absolutely help people understand my way of thinking in order to gain consensus. I am making observations based on real events. I do not like to pretend Reality doesn't exist. From where I am sitting, there is no rational basis for his actions that could be seen as a benefit for the United States. If I am to take his actions as strategic as opposed to personal, then that means he is attempting to deliberately harm the United States as a nation. I am not sure I am ready to accept that he is doing that willingly as opposed to it being a mere by product of his own transitory desires.



I thought I was framing it in a way that wasn't inflammatory.

Fair enough, and thanks for expanding.

I would request extra care on the inflammatory front, though. We live in an era where everything is inflammatory. Speculative assesments of personality that cannot be proven leads to the focus of the conversation moving to that, vs. dealing with the things that cannot be disputed, because it's easier to debate when the truth cannot be known, since neither side can be proven right or wrong.

Please do not take this as a scolding, bud, I'm trying something super specific here, and helps to stick to the letter of it, even if it seems silly or overly sensitive. I am not telling you you are wrong, this thread is about testing methodology. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, the purpose of this experiment is to create understanding, not win a debate. If you have a question, please feel free to ask it, but do not put words in my mouth, that tactic is designed to put people on the defensive and does not lend itself to real understanding.

(Don't worry, I'm a big boy, I am not offended by your phrasing, I'm just trying to keep the purpose of this thread in focus).

I will assume you meant to say "So, given that there is data supporting Trump's concerns, do you think Canada can simply ignore Trump's concern(s) and Trump will do nothing?"

To which I would reply that no one is ignorning anyone's concerns. It's simply a matter of realistic expectations. How do you figure that a country with 40 million people can achieve trade parity with a country with 325 million people?

I can only think of a few ways:

1) Drop our prices on everything and begin selling to America at a loss.

2) Abandon industries considered critical to national security, and buy exclusively from America.

3) Pay inflated prices for goods from America.

Obviously none of these are sustainable, and fall outside of what would be considered reasonable expectations.

The problem with judging our relationship based off of the trade deficit metric is that, as I've mentioned previously, it does not capture the entirety of the benefit you enjoy trading with us. Things like reduced shipping costs and the ability to do business in a politically stable country are the obvious ones. Much bigger than that, however, is the benefit you enjoy by having access to our massive surplus of natural resources and less expensive labor. These two factors drive massive savings for America, subsidizing your economy and delivering higher profit margins to your corporations.

While Trump focuses on something we cannot overcome due to our size, he ignores the benefits you guys get due to our size...hehe..

So, to answer your question about Trump doing nothing, well... I can tell you what he should do, according to the math and the statistics. But you'd have to explain to me why you think Trump would do something, given the above. Again, to keep this thread focussed, I'm not trying to beat you in a debate, I'm trying to understand your position, and help you understand mine, so that between us we can come up with something that makes sense to both of us.

I’m not saying that Trump’s concerns are valid cause for Canada to act, but he has certainly expressed a desire to place tariffs on Canadian imports unless Canada does so.

You have yet to say what “sustainable” actions Canada should take “which make sense to both of us”, thus I assumed that to be favoring Canada simply ignoring Trump’s concerns.

 

[OlNate]

I’m not saying that Trump’s concerns are valid cause for Canada to act, but he has certainly expressed a desire to place tariffs on Canadian imports unless Canada does so.

You have yet to say what actions Canada should take “which make sense to both of us”, thus I assumed that to be favoring Canada simply ignoring Trump’s concerns.

I think that "which makes sense to both of us" would need to be a collaborative effort, to be done after agreeing on the reality of the situation.

To my way of thinking, if you're asking, Canada should do what it always does, and that is be present in the discussion and work together with America to ensure that our trade relationship is mutually beneficial, with all factors taken into consideration. I don't think we've ever deviated from that approach. As with any relationship, things change, both externally and internally, you're never done working on the relationship. Certainly it makes it easier to do so when one "partner" is not threatening the other unless they get their way.

Can you acknowledge that, or do you have more questions?

 

[trixare4kids]

I think that "which makes sense to both of us" would need to be a collaborative effort, to be done after agreeing on the reality of the situation.

To my way of thinking, if you're asking, Canada should do what it always does, and that is be present in the discussion and work together with America to ensure that our trade relationship is mutually beneficial, with all factors taken into consideration. I don't think we've ever deviated from that approach. As with any relationship, things change, both externally and internally, you're never done working on the relationship. Certainly it makes it easier to do so when one "partner" is not threatening the other unless they get their way.

Can you acknowledge that, or do you have more questions?

Good morning
I read that Canada is threatening to turn off our electricity if Trump puts tariffs on Canadian imports on Feb 1st. It's getting testy.
I agree, both countries need to knock off the trolling of one another, and get back to working with one another. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...S&cvid=0caf75fe00044c59b6a8e32ba489d909&ei=25

 

[OlNate]

Good morning
I read that Canada is threatening to turn off our electricity if Trump puts tariffs on Canadian imports on Feb 1st. It's getting testy.
I agree, both countries need to knock off the trolling of one another, and get back to working with one another. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...S&cvid=0caf75fe00044c59b6a8e32ba489d909&ei=25

From my perpsective, I'm not sure we're trolling anymore. Rather, this is what the trolling has escalated to.

You have put forward theories about the type of man Trump is. What do you think a dignified response from Canada should look like, if Trump does, in fact, hit us with these tariffs, that would constitue a solution here? I mean, we've already basically fired Trudeau. Where do we go from here, if not retaliatory measures?