Canadian Prime Minister On Rejecting US Trade Negotiations

[LordFall]

4 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@LordFall I suspect you are not well informed on this. Canada is very strong. We are trusted and have many trade partners. These tariffs are taxes on Americans and only hurt the value of America as a good trade partner to the world. These tariffs hurt Americans dearly. Does Trump care? No. 
 

You should consider looking at Mark Carney’s resume. He isn’t tough. He is doing his job for all Canadians and even for the global economy. Very few humans hold a candle to Mark Carney. 

 

21 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@LordFall Frankly, the points you listed were AI generated and of limited scope, and it was biased towards Canada ending all trade relationships which will not happen. 

Right so your main point is that we are trusted and have many trade partners. I then debunked that we cannot pivot as 75% of our trade goes to the US and these are multi industry procurement deals that take years or decades to make. You then invalidate my point and link to random videos of Carney appealing to the country saying slogans like WE ARE STRONG AND WE DO NOT BACK DOWN. 

Like really? 

10 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@LordFall I think you are misrepresenting our discussions up to this point saying I’m responding with emotion instead of fact. 
 

1. In our previous conversation I clearly provided the audiobook I was referencing. Have you bothered to check that out? And, the points about Islamic teachings speaking to the heart is something I personally found true. We disagreed on the character of Mohammad, whether or not he was a warlord. During this time I referred to the audiobook and some searches online. But, you continued to disagree and I acknowledged the differences. We then entered into a Socratic conversation but you have not responded. I even responded to some of your insults without insulting you back. 
 

So, as for our recent conversation I think my actions suggest my attitude is respectful and informed. I even acknowledged the epistemic challenges we both share that knowing is rare even when using facts and history. 
 

2. Our current conversation suggests we have come to a different understanding regarding Canada’s current economic position and its power in negotiations with with United States. I do not feel I need to explain to you my reasoning in great detail. 
 

This said, I do not feel I’ve said anything that implies my feelings of Canada’s resilience is pure emotions. We can not know for sure what is to come. But, from my looking into it I’ve come to understand Canada has considerable power here long term as it remains a trade partner with the United States despite the relationship being ill. Canada continues to be a major player in global economic activity and will become a stronger nation through this. This is my opinion. I respect yours, without insulting you. 

Sorry man I think you are probably a well meaning person but our standards for intellectual rigor are different. My whole point with calling you emotions over logic is that in both discussions you strayed away from the hard conclusions in favour of more a more sentimental conclusion that I then proved wrong. Your main point was that Muhammad was not a warlord and that you enjoy the spirit of islam and the poetry of it. That's cool but I linked the definition of a warlord. You could say that you don't think he's a warlord and he was a rapper and that's your truth but that's just as inaccurate. 

You once again based your thoughts on Mark Carney based on how he appears not what the country's actual situation actually is. We will see how it goes and it's fine if you wanna discuss vague generalities but to me that's not really helpful in anyway shape or fact. What exactly is your problem against using AI to quickly find and identify the actual numbers that shape this negotiation? Did I say anything incorrect or is this once again a feelings based objection? 

This was exactly my criticism of Carney in my first reply. He appeals to people's pride and ego and pumps people up YES WE ARE PROUD CANADIANS WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN and I think he likes to feel strong and powerful and it's hurting his negotiation abilities with the Americans. You're kind of proving my point by falling for it without talking about what we are negotiating about and running away from the actual reality of our economy. These feelings of pride will not help Canadians when hundreds of thousands of people lose their job due to ego based posturing. 

Sorry like this is geopolitics not spirituality. If we aren't talking facts what are we talking about? 

Edited yesterday at 01:29 AM by LordFall

[Thought Art]

@LordFall Okay, you are just better and smarter than me. I really didn’t know that thank you. 

[LordFall]

@Thought Art Not about who is smarter, just about keeping the focus on macro data when discussing geopolitics. Take care man.

[Thought Art]

@LordFall Thanks man. 

[LordFall]

Where I've not given your point enough credit is that in foreign policy weakness is not respected and gets abused. Nixon had the saying "Probe with bayonets any situation that looks mushy, withdrawing only when the bayonets meet steel."

I think not conceiting and staying strong can help get us a better deal. I just worry about needlessly antagonizing narcissists. If they feel insulted they'll sabotage the negotiation at the benefit of no one. Sometimes you have to placate people that are crazy like Trump so that they feel like they won and everyone wins in return.

I hope you're right and Carney is playing it right and not falling into his ego in this case.  

[Thought Art]

@LordFall We will see what happens. 

[Thought Art]

 

[LordFall]

5 hours ago, Thought Art said:

 

What were the main points you liked from this video?

Just watched this one and found it very informative. It talks about why Booze is a key issue as it's very easy to remove booze from shelves and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to the US without affecting procurement deals and affecting canadian supply chains. 

Also covers some of the internet politics that are going on around it. For example Alberta and Saskatchewan seem reticent to follow Carney's instructions and have stocked back american booze already. Ontario hasn't and Doug Ford is playing a specific game since he has the most leverage with LCBO being one of the largest purchaser of alcohol in the world and his main priority is removing the auto tariffs that also affect the ontario aluminum/steel industries. 

It shows how we are using the limited power we have to inflict the most damage possible while being open to pivoting as soon as the american administration is willing to offer a fair deal. This gave me more faith in the negotiation tactics of Carney and his team. 

[Thought Art]

 

[LordFall]

[Leo Gura]

@LordFall Lol 

Drown him in maple syrup.

Edited 13 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Elliott]

Are you guys not aware that most of the tarrifs were ruled illegal in the u.s and Trump already had to pay them back, he's trying to do tariffs again like a blind baboon. It's just for show for the moron supporters

 

Trump is helping Canada too with Iran, China and Asia are buying Canadian oil and gas, setting up for long term trade for Canada that would have otherwise been off the table(Canadian oil is more expensive than OPEC). Canada has a ton of oil that they otherwise weren't able to sell easily, the Iran war will cause Asia to diversify oil supplies long term and China obviously wants to help Canada leave the U.S., a golden opportunity for China. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Elliott

[LordFall]

Yeah some of the IEEPA tariffs were overturned in February by the US supreme court. These new tariffs use a different legal mechanism to get pushed through and are expected to hold. 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

Yeah some of the IEEPA tariffs were overturned in February by the US supreme court. These new tariffs use a different legal mechanism to get pushed through and are expected to hold. 

No they don't 

[LordFall]

9 hours ago, Elliott said:

No they don't 

The US legal system works mostly on precedents.

The reason these Section 338 tariffs are expected to hold up better than the February ones comes down to statutory text and procedural requirements:

Direct Statutory Authority: Unlike IEEPA (which SCOTUS struck down because it doesn't explicitly mention "tariffs"), Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 explicitly authorizes duties up to 50% to offset foreign discrimination.

Broad Judicial Deference: Courts historically grant massive latitude to the President on trade decisions tied to foreign policy disputes.

So while importers will definitely challenge them in court, the legal basis under Section 338 is much tighter this time around.

[Elliott]

31 minutes ago, LordFall said:

The US legal system works mostly on precedents.

The reason these Section 338 tariffs are expected to hold up better than the February ones comes down to statutory text and procedural requirements:

Direct Statutory Authority: Unlike IEEPA (which SCOTUS struck down because it doesn't explicitly mention "tariffs"), Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 explicitly authorizes duties up to 50% to OFFSET foreign discrimination.

"Offset". Trump is trying to tariff above any tariffs Canada has on us. Under usmca we already had equal trade, Trump is the one that created it even. Republican scotus does not follow precedent, nor do they want tarrifs, they rule like kings for BlackRock whom doesn't want retarded tariffs. They would have used this argument the first time if it were good.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

"Offset". Trump is trying to tariff above any tariffs Canada has on us. Under usmca we already had equal trade, Trump is the one that created it even. Republican scotus does not follow precedent, nor do they want tarrifs, they rule like kings for BlackRock whom doesn't want retarded tariffs. They would have used this argument the first time if it were good.

You're mixing up executive strategy with legal validity. The administration used IEEPA first because national emergency declarations skip procedural reviews entirely. Once SCOTUS struck that down for lacking explicit tariff language, switching to explicit trade statutes like Section 338 or Section 301 is standard administrative maneuvering not a sign that the argument is weak and won't work. 

Section 338 grants broad authority to combat perceived trade discrimination against US commerce; it isn't limited to a strict line-by-line tariff parity match.

Also court challenges take months or years to wind through the Court of International Trade. Even if SCOTUS eventually rules against them, the tariffs sit in place during the litigation. Canadian exporters and supply chains have to deal with the immediate economic reality today, not a theoretical court injunction 1 year or more from now.

Section 338 is from the 1930s and has no recent precedent so it will perhaps successfully be challenged down the line but for the foreseeable future it will allow the trade war to go on. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall