Experiment: Can concensus be achieved through understanding in 2025? (1 Viewer)

[trixare4kids]

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?

Good afternoon, OlNate,

Is there such thing as a dignified response when someone puts tariffs on your country? I will have true empathy for Canadians, and especially you who lost your job the last round, if he goes through with his threat. I can't blame Canada for retaliating, but more importantly OlNate if he does do this, he needs to explain fully to everybody why he is doing it. I still think he's trolling Trudeau. Until he actually does this, I'm staying with that.

I can't think of one good reason he wouldn't want to rally around your conservative candidate in your fall election. He has the perfect opportunity but it's foolish to strain a possible great relationship if he's goes through with his threat. We'll see soon, won't we as to what's on his mind coming Feb. 1st, but as you said Trudeau, Canada's trolling P/M is all but gone, so what's the point?

Unless I am missing something, and if Trump is after something he knows, and we don't know, I don't find his reasons for Canadian tariffs sound. That doesn't mean I am against tariffs completely. I just don't think that many drugs are coming over from your side to warrant this, and your country is too small for a trade imbalance with us. You see OlNate, though I can be stubborn and overly defensive on my president's behalf and his America first policy, I really do study these issues. Our countries should remain strong allies. I think we should do everything possible to bring us closer together. No, I wouldn't blame Canada for harsh retaliation. Not at all.

 

[Cordelier]

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)



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

Isn't it more than a little childish to start taking these kind of things personally, though? Ohhh... Trudeau said mean things about me, so I'm going to show him....

C'mon Trix, that's 6th Grade playground stuff.

If you're the President and you feel - fairly or not - that you've been personally insulted, fine, be personally insulted. Nobody says he has to go out for beers with the guy...

But business is business... it has to take priority. If you can't put your personal feelings to the side and be a professional about things, then you've got no business doing the job you're in. Doesn't matter whether you're the President of the United States or an Assistant Manager at Walmart - the same principle applies.

 

[trixare4kids]

Isn't it more than a little childish to start taking these kind of things personally, though? Ohhh... Trudeau said mean things about me, so I'm going to show him....

C'mon Trix, that's 6th Grade playground stuff.

If you're the President and you feel - fairly or not - that you've been personally insulted, fine, be personally insulted. Nobody says he has to go out for beers with the guy...

But business is business... it has to take priority. If you can't put your personal feelings to the side and be a professional about things, then you've got no business doing the job you're in. Doesn't matter whether you're the President of the United States or an Assistant Manager at Walmart - the same principle applies.

It's childish on both their parts. The POINT.

 

[Cordelier]

It's childish on both their parts. The POINT.

My point is that it's not what you say that counts, it's what you do. Did Canada do anything to the US to justify this kind of treatment? I know we signed the USMCA deal with them after we unilaterally pulled out from NAFTA. Now, are we going to pull out from that as well? Why should they - or anyone - negotiate another deal with us if it isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

 

[OlNate]

My point is that it's not what you say that counts, it's what you do. Did Canada do anything to the US to justify this kind of treatment? I know we signed the USMCA deal with them after we unilaterally pulled out from NAFTA. Now, are we going to pull out from that as well? Why should they - or anyone - negotiate another deal with us if it isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

So, we're going for consensus through understanding here. I'm not saying you're wrong, and neither is @trixare4kids . We've both established that both leaders acted in an unprofessional manner, and covered the fact that actions to more damage than words.

While the threat of these tariffs do damage on their own, we are still waiting to see if Trump will put them in place. The threat has been extended to two possibilities - immediate tariffs beginning Feb 1, and then a revisit later in the year - nothing has been implemented yet. So, we'll see what actions we actually need to respond to.

Anyway, if you read the entire thread you'll find that we've been able to reach something of an understanding, and have already covered what you're bringing up. Do you have any suggestions on where the discussion could go from here, given the stated goal of this experiment? Legitimately asking, as I've been trying to figure this out for a minute now.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The purpose of this thread is to explore the question in the title. "Experiment: Can concensus be achieved through understanding in 2025?"

What exactly do you think Trump objects to regarding your country as far as his threats of tariffs go? I've already mentioned to you that Trump uses the threat of tariffs to get what he wants. What do you think he wants? Two questions. Please answer them.

Zeroing in on these quoted questions, and thread title, to make a point.

One area that may get us off the rails is assumption on Trump's motivations. For "understanding" to occur in any sense of the word the initial move by Trump would have been to initiate discussion with Canada (or any other nation we trade with) and get everyone to the bargaining table. The whole Art of the Deal sort of thing.

The point being the immediate, almost reactionary, threat of tariffs excludes the motivation of doing something beneficial for the US and Canada combined. Even is stated that Trump is thinking entirely in terms of social media meme comments like "Make America Great Again" or considering the economics of domestic production and jobs, some sort of influence on prices for goods and services, etc. we have no real evidence that is the case.

It is more likely that Trump is throwing out wide nets in temper tantrum style in order to see what sticks. Emotional, a power play. Testing the limits as there is little for him to lose? This is term #2, he does not necessarily have to deliver on all campaign promises, nor protect political allies, and a strong argument could be made all of his actions since setting foot back in the White House has been about this same mentality. How far he can go, who challenges him, and on what terms.

With just about any issue or subject, involving just about any nation.

That unfortunately concludes that "understanding" between nations, or even between political ideologies here domestically, is largely out of the question.

If you agree that Trump was raised and conditioned to look at just about all aspects of life as zero sum game (someone loses when someone wins) and that all relations are based on transaction (the success or failure of zero sum results) then you *have* to conclude the intention is perception of power. Changing who wins and ensuring someone else, probably plural, loses.

Why are we looking at this otherwise? (And, what is the counter argument to the above?)

 

[OlNate]

Zeroing in on these quoted questions, and thread title, to make a point.

One area that may get us off the rails is assumption on Trump's motivations. For "understanding" to occur in any sense of the word the initial move by Trump would have been to initiate discussion with Canada (or any other nation we trade with) and get everyone to the bargaining table. The whole Art of the Deal sort of thing.

The point being the immediate, almost reactionary, threat of tariffs excludes the motivation of doing something beneficial for the US and Canada combined. Even is stated that Trump is thinking entirely in terms of social media meme comments like "Make America Great Again" or considering the economics of domestic production and jobs, some sort of influence on prices for goods and services, etc. we have no real evidence that is the case.

It is more likely that Trump is throwing out wide nets in temper tantrum style in order to see what sticks. Emotional, a power play. Testing the limits as there is little for him to lose? This is term #2, he does not necessarily have to deliver on all campaign promises, nor protect political allies, and a strong argument could be made all of his actions since setting foot back in the White House has been about this same mentality. How far he can go, who challenges him, and on what terms.

With just about any issue or subject, involving just about any nation.

That unfortunately concludes that "understanding" between nations, or even between political ideologies here domestically, is largely out of the question.

If you agree that Trump was raised and conditioned to look at just about all aspects of life as zero sum game (someone loses when someone wins) and that all relations are based on transaction (the success or failure of zero sum results) then you *have* to conclude the intention is perception of power. Changing who wins and ensuring someone else, probably plural, loses.

Why are we looking at this otherwise? (And, what is the counter argument to the above?)

I think it's a good post, and I find little to argue with in it, other than I think there's naivety on the part of Trump's critics in suggesting that this is simply Trump being Trump. If you look at post #2, I've laid out a few possible scenarios that, while the may be entirely speculative and perhaps even unlikely, Trump's words and actions do not rule them out. But I guess those could be explained by Trump seeing things the way you suggest: in order to be a winner you must have a loser to stand over.

But to be clear about what we're digging into here, this isn't about how nations can come to consensus through understanding, but rather if we, as forum members, or members of society, can engage and discuss to where me might better understand each other despite being in different camps. The topic is coincidental, and convenient as we were already talking about it in another thread. We're examining whether or not approach and mindset can result in a better discussions and less of the now super boring Punch and Judy routine that the "conversation" between the left and the right has become.

This is a methodology experiment, basically.

 

[Cordelier]

So, we're going for consensus through understanding here. I'm not saying you're wrong, and neither is @trixare4kids . We've both established that both leaders acted in an unprofessional manner, and covered the fact that actions to more damage than words.

While the threat of these tariffs do damage on their own, we are still waiting to see if Trump will put them in place. The threat has been extended to two possibilities - immediate tariffs beginning Feb 1, and then a revisit later in the year - nothing has been implemented yet. So, we'll see what actions we actually need to respond to.

Anyway, if you read the entire thread you'll find that we've been able to reach something of an understanding, and have already covered what you're bringing up. Do you have any suggestions on where the discussion could go from here, given the stated goal of this experiment? Legitimately asking, as I've been trying to figure this out for a minute now.

There's no secret sauce to finding consensus, Nate... there just has to be a willingness to make concessions. But that's like saying if you want to make bread, you need flour - the only difference with consensus is that you have to be willing to settle for half a loaf.

 

[OlNate]

There's no secret sauce to finding consensus, Nate... there just has to be a willingness to make concessions. But that's like saying if you want to make bread, you need flour - the only difference with consensus is that you have to be willing to settle for half a loaf.

Totally agree with all of this, and yet the current discourse would indicate that we have lost this very simple concept, and I think it's worth examining if we can find out way back, given the consequences of not.

What do you think the hurdles are?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think it's a good post, and I find little to argue with in it, other than I think there's naivety on the part of Trump's critics in suggesting that this is simply Trump being Trump. If you look at post #2, I've laid out a few possible scenarios that, while the may be entirely speculative and perhaps even unlikely, Trump's words and actions do not rule them out. But I guess those could be explained by Trump seeing things the way you suggest: in order to be a winner you must have a loser to stand over.

But to be clear about what we're digging into here, this isn't about how nations can come to consensus through understanding, but rather if we, as forum members, or members of society, can engage and discuss to where me might better understand each other despite being in different camps. The topic is coincidental, and convenient as we were already talking about it in another thread. We're examining whether or not approach and mindset can result in a better discussions and less of the now super boring Punch and Judy routine that the "conversation" between the left and the right has become.

This is a methodology experiment, basically.

I think that is a tall order, how we interpret camp to camp motivations tends to get caught in various exchanges of campaign and/or party rhetoric about the subject then added false assumptions of means then impact.

In some respects, considering post #2, it is a fair statement to say one motivation (or at least a catch all) is Trump is doing what he more or less said he would. Just living in the area of these statements made no one should be surprised at the concept changing conditions with Canada, Mexico, China, even Taiwan and various other nations.

My comment aligns to something more interior, not necessarily something said on the campaign trail for example, but more a fundamental ideology I suspect of Trump. Just an interpretation of how he thinks given his background, upbringing, business successes and failures, personal relationships and marriages, scripted entertainment and media, of course politics, the works.

It is the difference between a political mission statement that fits on a picture shared on Facebook or TruthSocial, and something more fundamental in how a President looks at other nations (and really in dealing with anyone else.)

The "better discussions" part inherently means some sort of acknowledgement from Trump supporters on his mentality, or at least some sort of counter argument on means and motivations.

You follow what I am getting at? At some point the conversation has to shift from 'us vs. them' standards of typical argument upstairs to something more like talking about why Trump does what he does away from political goals and political opposition.

 

[Cordelier]

Totally agree with all of this, and yet the current discourse would indicate that we have lost this very simple concept, and I think it's worth examining if we can find out way back, given the consequences of not.

What do you think the hurdles are?

I think the main hurdle is that people don't do the work. Hardly anybody on either side actually tries to sit down and find the facts for themselves and form their own opinions. It's much easier to just parrot the lines the talking heads on MSNBC or Fox spout off. Everybody is in their own echo chamber.

 

[trixare4kids]

What do you think of this, OlNate? How does this help matters, furthering communication lines between both our countries?

warning: harsh name calling.

 

[Cordelier]

What do you think of this, OlNate? How does this help matters, furthering communication lines between both our countries?

warning: harsh name calling.

Communication?!? Trump unilaterally declared a Trade War on Canada!

You'd think if he had a problem with a close ally, the sensible, adult thing to do would be to sit down and try to negotiate a deal with them. Not just try to wreck their economy right out of the blocks. That's how you treat an adversary. There's no respect there at all.