• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump cannot back down from Canada

Aberration said:
Administrations are not legally bound by the previous deals of previous administrations. We have a process for such things.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? There's a process built in to NAFTA for dealing with disputes and America has just thrown the agreement out the window. Is that how it is with America?
You must be wrong, because if you're right nobody would bother signing an agreement with America. In fact, it's getting to where there's no point because you can't trust them to keep any agreements.
 
roguenuke said:
And using that stupid quote shows how poorly you word arguments. Why would someone want to have cake that they didn't eat? That is stupid. Hence, stupid quote. Of course you want to eat whatever cake it is that you have (what else would you be doing with cake).

And as it relates here, they want what is best for their country, while not giving into the threats of a bully like Trump.
Click to expand...

The Idiom Police has arrived on scene....
 
Aberration said:
Once you eat the cake, you no longer have a cake. FFS.
Click to expand...

That is why the cake part always comes first in that quote. You have to have cake before you can eat it, but you wouldn't likely have cake unless you wanted to eat it (or do something with it).
 
Bucky said:
Fine. If Canada wants to keep it's closed dairy system, they in no way should be able to sell their overpriced milk to any other country.
Click to expand...

Why not, so long as other countries are willing to buy it? That is a free market.
 
Grand Mal said:
America signed the deal. Canada has operated in good faith within NAFTA. American negotiators brought the deal back to Bush Sr. and said it was a good one. Now America wants some of it back so to hell with signed agreements, straight to tariffs and more tariffs and threats of more. That's the value of an agreement with America. Forget orderly renegotiation. Forget the process built into the agreement. Straight to strong-arm bully tactics.
The world is watching what your nation has become.
Click to expand...
Aberration said:
Administrations are not legally bound by the previous deals of previous administrations. We have a process for such things.
Click to expand...

NAFTA isn't merely a deal made by a previous administration. It's woven into U.S. law.

Yes, we do have a process.

And, yes, Trump is doing his best to show that other countries would be unwise to expect the U.S. to deal in good faith.

There are legal blocks to Trump unilaterally breaking America's earlier promises with regard to NAFTA. The most obvious one is that if he tries to push through a bilateral deal with Mexico, it will require 60 senators to approve it. Much more difficult than if it is a trilateral deal with Mexico and Canada.

But the fact that Trump is doing his best to break faith shows that other nations would do well to cultivate relationships with countries who are more reliable than Trump's America is.
 
roguenuke said:
Why not, so long as other countries are willing to buy it? That is a free market.
Click to expand...

Okay... so they charge a 300% tariff on our milk but they are allowed to export cheap milk tariff-free?
 
Bucky said:
Okay... so they charge a 300% tariff on our milk but they are allowed to export cheap milk tariff-free?
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me if we are trying to ruin their market by selling them our excess milk or charging them unfair tariffs on other goods. If we don't like it, we need to negotiate a fair deal, not try to bully them into harming their economy just to benefit us. Those tariffs are not what is hurting our farmers. Other factors are definitely doing that.
 
Amelia said:
NAFTA isn't merely a deal made by a previous administration. It's woven into U.S. law.

Yes, we do have a process.

And, yes, Trump is doing his best to show that other countries would be unwise to expect the U.S. to deal in good faith.

There are legal blocks to Trump unilaterally breaking America's earlier promises with regard to NAFTA. The most obvious one is that if he tries to push through a bilateral deal with Mexico, it will require 60 senators to approve it. Much more difficult than if it is a trilateral deal with Mexico and Canada.

But the fact that Trump is doing his best to break faith shows that other nations would do well to cultivate relationships with countries who are more reliable than Trump's America is.
Click to expand...
Trump's horrid treatment of our allies is something that will take many years to repair.
 
Bucky said:
Canadians dairy cartel was already found to be in violation by the wto panel. They are complete thugs!
Click to expand...

100% serious.

Are you President Trump? The only reason I can come up with so far to show that you aren't is that your spelling and punctuation is much better than his.
 
Grand Mal said:
You sure about that? There's a process built in to NAFTA for dealing with disputes and America has just thrown the agreement out the window. Is that how it is with America?
You must be wrong, because if you're right nobody would bother signing an agreement with America. In fact, it's getting to where there's no point because you can't trust them to keep any agreements.
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant. If an Administration is not legally bound by a previous administrations agreements, then they are also no bound by the ‘process’ in the agreement. Its why countries should NOT sign executive agreements. If they want permanency they want a treaty. And they ALL know this.
 
roguenuke said:
That is why the cake part always comes first in that quote. You have to have cake before you can eat it, but you wouldn't likely have cake unless you wanted to eat it (or do something with it).
Click to expand...

This is why mandating a minimum of wage is stupid.
 
Amelia said:
NAFTA isn't merely a deal made by a previous administration. It's woven into U.S. law.

Yes, we do have a process.

And, yes, Trump is doing his best to show that other countries would be unwise to expect the U.S. to deal in good faith.

There are legal blocks to Trump unilaterally breaking America's earlier promises with regard to NAFTA. The most obvious one is that if he tries to push through a bilateral deal with Mexico, it will require 60 senators to approve it. Much more difficult than if it is a trilateral deal with Mexico and Canada.

But the fact that Trump is doing his best to break faith shows that other nations would do well to cultivate relationships with countries who are more reliable than Trump's America is.
Click to expand...

So he’s following the process. So what’s the problem? TDS.
 
Aberration said:
So he’s following the process. So what’s the problem? TDS.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the post you replied to?
Damn.You're not very good at this, are you.
 
Aberration said:
Its irrelevant. If an Administration is not legally bound by a previous administrations agreements, then they are also no bound by the ‘process’ in the agreement. Its why countries should NOT sign executive agreements. If they want permanency they want a treaty. And they ALL know this.
Click to expand...

I said I thought you're wrong about that. Got anything to back it up?
 
Bucky said:
Okay... so they charge a 300% tariff on our milk but they are allowed to export cheap milk tariff-free?
Click to expand...

Don't have a clue what you're taking about. do you. Just beaking off random bull**** and moving on to the next crap response.
 
Grand Mal said:
I said I thought you're wrong about that. Got anything to back it up?
Click to expand...

Simple. The Constitution does not grant the executive the power to make agreements, nor does it state a following executive is bound. So you’re asking for proof of a negative.
 
Aberration said:
So he’s following the process. So what’s the problem? TDS.
Click to expand...

There's a whole lot wrong. On so many levels.

Such as his bizarre claim of national security as his excuse for levying tariffs, since he had to make that claim to legally justify levying the tariffs without approval of Congress. And his further justification being that we supposedly have a trade deficit with Canada -- which was a lie -- we have a surplus. And then him abandoning even the pretense of using national security to add even more tariffs, because he was annoyed at a perfectly reasonable comment made by Trudeau.

And that's just a tiny amount. He keeps piling on the wrongs so fast that it's hard to keep track of them.

He's treating our allies like enemies, while he sucks up to murderous dictators.



He's carrying on trade wars on at least three fronts, with no definition of what a "win" will look like. There's almost no possibility that when he finally calls a halt to the wars that we will have made enough gains to make up for all the damage that he will have done to American businesses and to our standing in the world.
 
Aberration said:
Simple. The Constitution does not grant the executive the power to make agreements, nor does it state a following executive is bound. So you’re asking for proof of a negative.
Click to expand...

The Constitution also doesn't state that marrying your sister means you have to change your name to hers, either. What the constitution doesnt state has no bearing at all on treaties and trade agreements.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Which is also the crux of the Softwood lumber dispute earlier mentioned, the Canadians subsidize their timber by setting artificially low stumpage rates. Yet they want full access to our market for softwood lumber.

The Canadians have never specifically demanded we eliminate dairy subsidies, and in any event the tariff is far higher then is necessary to equalize the subsidy.
Click to expand...

The WTO has sides with Canada 4 times on the lumber didpute.

Do I guess "fair trade" is the US gets to keep its tariffs and subsidies, while Canada has to concede on everything.

Fair trade is a lie, you don't want fair trade, you want one-sided deals.
 
Grand Mal said:
The Constitution also doesn't state that marrying your sister means you have to change your name to hers, either. What the constitution doesnt state has no bearing at all on treaties and trade agreements.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is the only thing that has bearing on who and how a treaty is made. It says nothing about ‘trade agreements’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom