• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

Amidst all the insanity going on south of the border, one congressman is introducing a bill that, if passed, would allow a third term for Trump. Unlikely to happen? Who would have thought that Trump would have been re-elected after the January 6th Capitol attack.

People shouldn’t believe it wouldn’t/couldn’t happen.

Yeah, that went in a few weeks ago. Quite tellingly it allows for a third term only if the first two terms were non-consecutive. It’s a blatant pandering to Trump. It’s unconstitutional of course; the 22nd amendment expressly rules it out.

True, however…

‘Un’constitutional just means there hasn’t been an Amendment yet to permit it.
 
If Brad West ever ran federally, it would probably be the first time I would vote NDP.


But one would think that if this was really bothering Trump, he would made some dumb clumsy comment about Canada “being controlled by CHAI-nuh” to explain their belligerence with us, instead of the assorted grab-bag of phoney grievances he’s already aired.

Just as the Trump-whisperers were wrong on his objectives with Russia and Ukraine, I think they’re wrong on his objectives with us.
 
But one would think that if this was really bothering Trump, he would made some dumb clumsy comment about Canada “being controlled by CHAI-nuh” to explain their belligerence with us, instead of the assorted grab-bag of phoney grievances he’s already aired.
This is a good point.

So why hasn’t it been heard as a point clearly stated by the US/Trump? Giving Canada some room to address the interference/incursion of foreign influence and organized crime? It would seem that many of the significant issues (Chinese-supported criminality IN Canada, money laundering, significant foreign real estate investment impacting housing affordability) are reaching levels that can’t be ignored…so when or will the US move on from an immigration/fentanyl problem to the other issues? I honestly don’t know at this point. If the issue truly is 43 lbs of fentanyl and a few thousand illegal immigrants from CAN>US (proportionately less than US>CAN), then one would question the validity and scale of the IS action towards Canada.
 
People shouldn’t believe it wouldn’t/couldn’t happen.



True, however…

‘Un’constitutional just means there hasn’t been an Amendment yet to permit it.
Right. Given the threshold for amendment, I believe repealing the term limit in the 22nd is a non-starter. I’m not concerned about Trump retaining power lawfully. He’s also quite old, and his usefulness to those building themselves up within the oligarchy will fade as other people and policies are entrenched. I’d be more concerned about who gets figureheaded as a successor.
 
Guys common, there is no business case to send our bountiful natural resources to market. We must focus on the new green machine, maybe our new cricket farms can solve hunger in africa.
 
There is no Team Canada. Quebec says no East/West pipeline, Supply Management is not on the table.
What Quebec wants, Quebec gets.
There is one solution: declare a National Imperative to get things done. Quebec doesn't like it, too fricken bad. Quebec has blackmailed Canada long enough.
 
More Team Canada? Not sure how they will square this one…


Any wonder we are getting screwed over yet?
That’s a private member’s bill from a member of the NDP who has already announced he won’t run again. It’s utterly meaningless and will likely not advance pst first reading, as is often the case with private members’ bills. Such bills are often nothing more than performative, and all parties have had their share of silliness hit Hansard that way.
 
That’s a private member’s bill from a member of the NDP who has already announced he won’t run again. It’s utterly meaningless and will likely not advance pst first reading, as is often the case with private members’ bills. Such bills are often nothing more than performative, and all parties have had their share of silliness hit Hansard that way.
He is a long serving MP who many Canadians voted for. It sends a message. And that message is disunity which hurts the country.
 
This is no different that the red white and blue-land bill from down south we were all laughing at. Performative and insubstantial but indicative of political climate..
 
As a rough planning area...sure.
The point is to have corridors pre-approved (environmental, political, etc) for all the purposes cited and maybe a few we haven't thought of, in order to eliminate many of the usual long litigation/negotiation processes that delay project completion. For that, it would be prudent to have enough right-of-way real estate to provide space for contingencies we haven't foreseen. None of it needs to have access roads and clear-cuts until a project requires those things. There ought to be a handful of east-west options, and five or six times as many running approximately orthogonally - from northern regions down to the main Canada-US border.
 
I get the feeling that this crew won’t care what the constitution or the courts say.

“How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?”
The prior administration goaded opponents into seeking - and obtaining - an unprecedented number of injunctions, including many nation-wide ones, and respected the courts.

We can go on past behaviour, or we can make up sh!t to worry about.
 
So Barrick Gold is now musing about re-domiciling in the US. They won't say it, but directly related to President Chamberlain's tariff threats, our current business/economic uncertainty/tax regime, etc, etc.

Very, very few globally recognized Canadian businesses left folks.
 
That’s a private member’s bill from a member of the NDP who has already announced he won’t run again. It’s utterly meaningless and will likely not advance pst first reading, as is often the case with private members’ bills. Such bills are often nothing more than performative, and all parties have had their share of silliness hit Hansard that way.
Still QV is right, this adds to the problem and gets picked up on social media. Social Licence is a big deal in regards to large projects and adds significant costs and time barriers to them. Stuff like this gets added to the scale when a company is weighing the pro's and con's of investing billions into a project. An offshore company will not see the difference between a has been NDP MP and having to deal with a Provincial NDP government, they will get lumped together.
 
That’s a private member’s bill from a member of the NDP who has already announced he won’t run again. It’s utterly meaningless and will likely not advance pst first reading, as is often the case with private members’ bills. Such bills are often nothing more than performative, and all parties have had their share of silliness hit Hansard that way.

No different than the grief that the CPC got for private member’s Bill C-311 (inclusion of pregnancy as aggravating factor in sentencing violence/assault convictions) and that was twistedly portrayed by many as anti-abortion legislation, to support the ‘Conservatives have voted to take away women’s right to have an abortion’ narrative.

Private Member’s Bill or not, the NDP as a party supports the premise. Goose and gander should get equal treatment, because it’s 10 years after 2015!
 
No different than the grief that the CPC got for private member’s Bill C-311 (inclusion of pregnancy as aggravating factor in sentencing violence/assault convictions) and that was twistedly portrayed by many as anti-abortion legislation, to support the ‘Conservatives have voted to take away women’s right to have an abortion’ narrative.

Private Member’s Bill or not, the NDP as a party supports the premise. Goose and gander should get equal treatment, because it’s 10 years after 2015!
Agreed. So we can settle on both those things then for what they are.
 
The House still has to bet back to business before it can be looked at.
Given the amount of time the NDP gets, Singh has to decide whether it's important enough to drop his own demands and support it's reading.
It has to get placed on the docket to be read and then debated.
Charlie Angus has lost tons of support in Northern Ontario because of his support for the libs gun laws. He knows he's going to get his ass handed to him and is pulling pin before the humiliation becomes real and tarnishes his legacy.
This is Charlie flipping the table over and making a rukus on his way out the door.
Watching Charlie since his decision not to run, I'm sure he banged his head and is operating with a concussion. He's become a loose cannon on deck.
And not worth the publicity.
 
The prior administration goaded opponents into seeking - and obtaining - an unprecedented number of injunctions, including many nation-wide ones, and respected the courts.

We can go on past behaviour, or we can make up sh!t to worry about.
That’s like saying “We robbed the bank and burned it down because the other side skimmed some cash from the cash register”.
 
Back
Top