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

[Halifax Tar]

So does that mean all the other countries around the world have already surrendered and we are just the last that may do so?

Unfortunately Jen isn't a member here, I don't think, so we can't ask her.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Unfortunately Jen isn't a member here, I don't think, so we can't ask her.

Doesn't matter, what I was stating is a fact. A fact that it seems others don't want to acknowledge or be aware of.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Doesn't matter, what I was stating is a fact. A fact that it seems others don't want to acknowledge or be aware of.

Ummm ok. #elbowsup!

 

[ModlrMike]

Ten weeks. We have to hold firm for ten weeks. If either, and certainly if both houses change hands, then that changes everything. A minority, lame duck president will be entirely different than what we have now.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Ten weeks. We have to hold firm for ten weeks. If either, and certainly if both houses change hands, then that changes everything. A minority, lame duck president will be entirely different than what we have now.

I hope that you are right.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They did have a deficit with the US, not ‘if’ and it still got them a 10% tariff against them.

The point is that if Trump thinks a trade balance has a win side ("surplus") and a loss side ("deficit"), he is taking the wrong position. Countries with trade deficits (US trade surplus) are the ones he should be going after, because being on the "deficit" side is theoretically the place to be.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trade and the future of CUSMA isn't just in Trump's hands. Some people still think there's too much latitude for Chinese products to find their way into goods manufactured/assembled in Canada and Mexico and consequently enter the US enjoying the advantages of the trade deal. Their objections are also part of the mix. Regardless what anyone thinks the threshold numbers should be, the factor can't simply be wished away.

 

[Furniture]

So does that mean all the other countries around the world have already surrendered and we are just the last that may do so?

Two key points:

1. The rest of the countries aren't as dependant on a good reasonable deal with America. They have lots of other irons in the fire.

2. Trump has ignored those "deals" on a whim repeatedly. Giving him a symbolic "win" now just feeds his ego, and emboldens him to keep pushing for more.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Defence Analyst Wesley Wark has some thoughts on various leaks that are appearing in various media outlets:

Get a trade deal, get ready to give away our sovereignty?

Or, what’s with the leaks?

wesleywark.substack.com

 

[suffolkowner]

So does that mean all the other countries around the world have already surrendered and we are just the last that may do so?

are there actually any deals that other countries have made with Trump? I often hear that theres been an agreement only to here later that there wasnt?

 

[FSTO]

Ten weeks. We have to hold firm for ten weeks. If either, and certainly if both houses change hands, then that changes everything. A minority, lame duck president will be entirely different than what we have now.

Or he’s a wounded bear lashing out incoherently.

 

[Genetk44]

Or he’s a wounded bear lashing out incoherently.

If the dems get hold of both houses Trump becomes a chained bear and effectivly becomes almost powerless.

 

[Czech_pivo]

are there actually any deals that other countries have made with Trump? I often hear that theres been an agreement only to here later that there wasnt?

Lots of- Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, EU, Japan, South Korea

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the dems get hold of both houses Trump becomes a chained bear and effectivly becomes almost powerless.

That's not how the political structure works there. A party can control Congress and, without a veto-proof majority, be almost powerless in Congress. The executive can do (or try) whatever it wants to (eg. by executive orders), limited only by courts and with its back protected in Congress by the Senate minority. The usage of the courts isn't going to change much - this administration already gets plenty of push back and Trump's opponents have no difficulty finding sympathetic judges willing to issue nation-wide injunctions. So no change in the courts, and no productive change in Congress.

None of this is new stuff that was created during Trump's time. This situation was created by earlier incarnations of Republican and Democratic presidents and Congressional majorities, and Democratic activists and supporters in particular have been strong supporters of presidential authority whenever the president is a Democrat.

If Democrats win the House but not the Senate, look for them to pull the same stunt they have done in the past: pass a whole bunch of children-and-kittens bills with embedded poison pill provisions that they know are going to die in the Senate, and then wail that Republicans are evil people who hate children and kittens. If they win the Senate, they'll do the same thing and then wail about presidential vetoes. And all that will be the foundation for another spate of op-eds about how the US is ungovernable and the Senate and courts and parts of the constitutional framework need to be extensively overhauled.

[Add: and bear in mind the historical reality that the Democrats are the more protectionist-leaning of the two parties]