The problem with this administration is that you can't tell if they are
1) fools (resources != profitable resource extraction)
2) on drugs (elon's pupils during his oval office press conf)
3) hilariously corrupt ( zeroing out IRS, SEC enforcement)
4) captive by insane ideologies (the neo-nazis they willingly associate with, trump's strange pro-russia views)
5) all of the above
Playing the thought experiment: If you truly annex Canada and those 40m people have voting rights, I don’t see a bright future for the Republican Party. Given proportional representation, they’ll have a voting bloc bigger than California and their politics do not align with the current state of the republicans.
Would Canada get voting rights? I would assume that Canada (or any other aquisition) would get a status like the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico to prevent a political shift in the US.
Trump has always said "51st state", so all Canadian provinces would have a few Representatives and 2 senators. The number of electoral votes is sacred, as is the number of senators and representatives. Adding Canada as 1 state wouldn't really change national politics.
The total number of electoral votes isn't fixed, and in fact has changed dramatically over the years. Additionally, the number of electors (electoral votes) per state is determined by the Census. "A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress."
The number of electors has been effectively fixed since 1927. It's unlikely to change in this highly polarized environment. Any increase in electors would reduce Republican power. If Canada comes in as the 51st (singular!) state all that would happen is New York California, Illinois, Texas and Florida would all get fewer electors (House seats).
You forgot to say that the current trade agreement was signed by the Orange Palpatine himself.
So, this is an admission that he signed a bad deal? I thought he was a good businessman.
if the US feels Canada isn't following whatever the fuck Trump made them rename NAFTA, then he's welcome to use the dispute resolution section of the treaty to get satisfaction, instead of being a massive cunt to the US's closest ally and neighbour.
I don't think boycotts are primarily about tariffs. I think it's more a response to the "Governor Trudeau" and "51st state" remarks, and similar. To the extent they are about tariffs I'd assume it's mostly just how they were introduced (rehetoric, process).
What protectionist tariffs has Canada imposed on the USA exactly before Trump's trade war?
> And so, no, you’re are wrong, these are not tariffs for nothing. Stop lying.
But you... Did? There was a free trade agreement, negotiated and signed by the same president you put back into the White House, it's just NAFTA with another name, and even with that they decided to put tariffs on Canada. There's no rhyme or reason to do that, no matter how much you attempt to be a pushover with an absolutely empty argument.
Remember we are imposing the tariffs on an emergency basis because of fentanyl crossing the border. Even though everyone, even our mastermind president can't even play along with his own rouse; saying things like he wants manufacturing to move to the US or Canada becoming state 51 to avoid tariffs. There are no more rules anymore.
The legal justification is the story about the border. From an explainer article:
> Part of the reason Trump could impose the tariffs so quickly is because the White House is invoking a sweeping national security law to justify the new levies.
> Until now, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, had been used mainly to impose emergency sanctions on foreign dictators or suspected terrorist groups.
> But the Trump administration argues that the illicit global fentanyl trade and immigrants at the Mexican border both qualify as "unusual and extraordinary" foreign threats to American national security, justifying Trump's use of emergency powers under IEEPA.
Tru dat. When Canada gloriously becomes the 51st, hell, maybe even 52nd state, there will be no fentanyl smuggling, or any other smuggling, across the border. Because no border. Genius!
I'm not canadian, but my understanding is that this is beyond just the tariff. It is in addition of the general attitude and (lack of) diplomacy from the US government towards Canada for the past few weeks.
White House Press Secretary said the quiet part loud when she announced that Canada can stop this tariff business by agreeing to become the 51st state.
Which would most likely lead to blue Congress and Executive, which is why they will first play shenanigans to ensure no more elections like we have known them.
This is an important part of the article: "Canada accounted for only 1% of the company's total sales, Whiting said, so the company can withstand the hit."
So, he's saying that he couldn't care less about his government hurting Canada (and other countries, for that matter) but as soon as anything hurts them, it's a big deal? What's the word for it ...? Ah, selfishness.
You don't get to start a trade war and complain that the reciprocate tariffs are bad.
How did this delusion spread in the US?
If you're going to play the trade war game for equal damages then neither side should play. Trade wars should be about disproportionate damage until the other side quits.
36 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 88.6 ms ] threadOn a percentage basis, it's merely a finite response to an infinite action. That doesn't seem unfair to me.
Don't expect your enemy to play by your rules when you're the one who made them an enemy.
Yes, I'm glossing over Quebec.
You can see a table of the number of electors per state, and how that changed over time, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg....
Given to us by Jesus himself.
> And so, no, you’re are wrong, these are not tariffs for nothing. Stop lying.
But you... Did? There was a free trade agreement, negotiated and signed by the same president you put back into the White House, it's just NAFTA with another name, and even with that they decided to put tariffs on Canada. There's no rhyme or reason to do that, no matter how much you attempt to be a pushover with an absolutely empty argument.
It has never been about the boarder, it's about control of natural resources.
All his policies achieved is becoming a joke in the international stage.
> Part of the reason Trump could impose the tariffs so quickly is because the White House is invoking a sweeping national security law to justify the new levies.
> Until now, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, had been used mainly to impose emergency sanctions on foreign dictators or suspected terrorist groups.
> But the Trump administration argues that the illicit global fentanyl trade and immigrants at the Mexican border both qualify as "unusual and extraordinary" foreign threats to American national security, justifying Trump's use of emergency powers under IEEPA.
You don't get to start a trade war and complain that the reciprocate tariffs are bad. How did this delusion spread in the US?