flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

They can't help themselves, MAGA.

When affordability is the BIGGEST issue that Americans are concerned with, they double down on raising taxes through tariffs.

But it DOES energize their MAGA base, as we see here. This kind of thing really excites them for some reason.

---

Putting the United States first over Canada does tend to get "MAGA base" energized and excited. What's curious is that it bothers the left… until you consider they hate America.

HTH.

---

Putting animosity towards the French language first over the financial interest of Americans is another case of crazy Maga wokeness.

shiftyandquick said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

They can't help themselves, MAGA.

When affordability is the BIGGEST issue that Americans are concerned with, they double down on raising taxes through tariffs.

But it DOES energize their MAGA base, as we see here. This kind of thing really excites them for some reason.

---

Putting the United States first over Canada does tend to get "MAGA base" energized and excited. What's curious is that it bothers the left… until you consider they hate America.

HTH.

---

Putting animosity towards the French language first over the financial interest of Americans is another case of crazy Maga wokeness.

---

Why should Canada get unrestrained access to our market while protecting their own companies from competing with American industries via, you guessed it, high tariffs on American goods?

Because that's what Canada wants.

Explain to us why we should give it to them

Interesting, and not unacceptable, list of demands IMO, if accurate.

Ce que Washington réclamait du Canada.

À LA TABLE
▪ Abandon des politiques de découvrabilité des œuvres en français;
▪ Modification des subventions à la culture;
▪ Assouplissement des règles d'étiquetage en français;
▪ Retrait de tous les contre-tarifs canadiens;
▪ Retour… pic.twitter.com/DgJeduh8mF

— Le Lobby de Montréal 🏴 (@lobbymontreal) August 23, 2026

What Washington demanded from Canada.

AT THE TABLE
-Abandonment of discoverability policies for French-language works;
-Modification of cultural subsidies;
-Relaxation of French labeling rules;
-Withdrawal of all Canadian counter-tariffs;
-Return of American alcohol to provincial liquor stores;
-End of Canadian procurement policies (Ontario, Quebec, and B.C. specifically targeted);
-American interpretation of dairy quota allocations;
-Steel: quota of 4M tons, 25% internal, 50% beyond, counter-tariffs withdrawn;
-Auto: limited relief to passenger cars, vans and heavy trucks excluded;
-Restriction of Canada's ability to conclude other trade agreements.

IN THE USTR REPORT (March 31, 2026)
-Quebec's Bill 109, on the promotion of francophone content;
-Bill 96, in effect since 2025;
-Online Streaming Act, Online News Act;
-Supply management, cheese composition, Class 7 milk;
-Seeds Act, zero plastic waste strategy.

REPORTED BY THE GLOBE AND MAIL (August 14)
-Right of first refusal on critical minerals;
-Full purchase of the 88 F-35s, i.e., 88B$;
-American radar planes and membership in the Golden Dome;
-Guarantee on oil and gas exports.

WHAT OTTAWA HAD ALREADY CONCEDED, WITHOUT RECIPROCATION
-Digital services tax, abandoned in June 2025;
-Counter-tariffs, largely withdrawn on September 1, 2025;
-Netflix tax: contribution raised from 5% to 15%, then canceled. 2B$ in Canadian content funding evaporated, replaced by 600M$ from taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Explain to us why we should give it to them

---

Let's imagine that there are two possible trade scenarios:


1.) We have 0 tariffs, and the Canadians have 100% tariffs.

2.) We have 10% tariffs, and the Canadians have 10% tariffs.

I am going to concede that scenario 2 is more "facially just" and scenario 1 is more "facially unjust" with justice being understood to exist as between the median American and the median Canadian.

Fair enough.

But what happens when the median American would have a higher standard of living under scenario 1? If the median American has a higher standard of living under scenario 1, then the government has a moral duty to seek that higher standard of living for the median American. Justice between the hypothetical median American and the hypothetical median Canadian is irrelevant, if we can raise median living standards in America. That median Canadian simply does not exist. Higher living standards on this side of the border do exist.

The opponents of tariffs are arguing that tariffs lower the living standards of median Americans. Again, you can't tax your way to prosperity. You can, however, exploit comparative advantage through free trade, thereby raising the living standards of your own people.

I don't give two ****s about the living standards outside of the United States. The right tariff rate is the rate that maximizes the ability of the American economy to put steak on the tables in American homes.

Quote:

---

. Abandonment of discoverability policies for French-language works;
-Modification of cultural subsidies;

---

Is there anyone here who really gives two ****s about whether NetFlix has to carry Caillou? This is a deal that should be about forest products and steel.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Explain to us why we should give it to them

---

Let's imagine that there are two possible trade scenarios:


1.) We have 0 tariffs, and the Canadians have 100% tariffs.

2.) We have 10% tariffs, and the Canadians have 10% tariffs.

I am going to concede that scenario 2 is more "facially just" and scenario 1 is more "facially unjust" with justice being understood to exist as between the median American and the median Canadian.

Fair enough.

But what happens when the median American would have a higher standard of living under scenario 1? If the median American has a higher standard of living under scenario 1, then the government has a moral duty to seek that higher standard of living for the median American. Justice between the hypothetical median American and the hypothetical median Canadian is irrelevant, if we can raise median living standards in America. That median Canadian simply does not exist. Higher living standards on this side of the border do exist.

The opponents of tariffs are arguing that tariffs lower the living standards of median Americans. Again, you can't tax your way to prosperity. You can, however, exploit comparative advantage through free trade, thereby raising the living standards of your own people.

I don't give two ****s about the living standards outside of the United States. The right tariff rate is the rate that maximizes the ability of the American economy to put steak on the tables in American homes.

Quote:

---

. Abandonment of discoverability policies for French-language works;
-Modification of cultural subsidies;

---

Is there anyone here who really gives two ****s about whether NetFlix has to carry Caillou? This is a deal that should be about forest products and steel.

---

Whole lot of words with zero facts behind them.

You're just saying "let Canada get away with it because it makes me feel good

Quote:

---

Whole lot of words with zero facts behind them.

You're just saying "let Canada get away with it because it makes me feel good

---

No, actually.

I'm saying, "Let Canada get away with it, if we make more money by doing so."

Here's more stupid *****

Quote:

---

Relaxation of French labeling rules;

---

Who cares?

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Whole lot of words with zero facts behind them.

You're just saying "let Canada get away with it because it makes me feel good

---

No, actually.

I'm saying, "Let Canada get away with it, if we make more money by doing so."

---

Explain how we make more money when Canada cuts off our ability to sell to them while undercutting us in our own market

"Hi, Im proposing a trade deal where we get to sell our stuff to you at a discount rate while you aren't allowed to sell anything to us so your dollars flow into our economy and stay there! It will make you so much money just don't ask how!"

Quote:

---

Explain how we make more money when Canada cuts off our ability to sell to them while undercutting us in our own market

---

That's actually pretty easy. We don't have to sell anything to them in order to be better off for buying things from them.

In order for us to be better off, they just need to sell us products that they can produce more cheaply than we can produce them.

We import about $400B in goods from Canada.

About $120B is energy. So, we import a barrel of oil. We make some gallons of gasoline. We are adding value to a commodity through US labor. Who wins, if the oil gets cheaper? The refiner (or the US consumer).

The second biggest category is vehicle manufacturing.

The same part gets shipped across the border 4 times. They send us a drive train. We sell an F-150. The value is created in Detroit. The profit goes to the owners of Ford Motor Company shares, and to Ford dealers in small towns throughout America.

We buy about $2B in electric power from Canada. Because they have hydro power, and we don't, we can buy their power cheaper than we can produce our own, at least in upstate NY.

If I am buying cheap Canadian oil and selling gasoline to Europeans, who will pay through the nose, then I am better off.

If I can buy cheap maple syrup and use it to sell high-profit pancakes, I win.

**** Canada. They bring nothing to the table.

The market disagrees, to the tune of about $400B/year.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Explain how we make more money when Canada cuts off our ability to sell to them while undercutting us in our own market

---

That's actually pretty easy. We don't have to sell anything to them in order to be better off for buying things from them.

In order for us to be better off, they just need to sell us products that they can produce more cheaply than we can produce them.

We import about $400B in goods from Canada.

About $120B is energy. So, we import a barrel of oil. We make some gallons of gasoline. We are adding value to a commodity through US labor. Who wins, if the oil gets cheaper? The refiner (or the US consumer).

The second biggest category is vehicle manufacturing.

The same part gets shipped across the border 4 times. They send us a drive train. We sell an F-150. The value is created in Detroit.

We buy about $2B in electric power from Canada. Because they have hydro power, and we don't, we can buy their power cheaper than we can produce our own, at least in upstate NY.

If I am buying cheap Canadian oil and selling gasoline to Europeans, who will pay through the nose, then I am better off.

---

Again you are making up hypotheticals while ignoring the cost to American manufacturers who can't sell to Canada but get undercut by them because of tariffs.

The only real reason for a trade imbalance like this is dependence. Making someone totally dependent on you at the price of terrible trade deals. It's all post WW2 policy to make sure they don't side with the commies and instead are dependent on us. Well guess what? They sided with communism anyway so time to stop rewarding them with a sweetheart trade deal that only benefits them

It's not making life for us better. Its maintaining an expensive empire we don't need anymore

Quote:

---

. Again you are making up hypotheticals while ignoring the cost to American manufacturers who can't sell to Canada but get undercut by them because of tariffs.

---

Canada is the top destination for US exports, as recently as 2024.

We are ****ing with our primary external customer.

That is not hypothetical.

The primary beneficiaries of the pre-Trump relationship are US EXPORTERS.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Canada is the top destination for US exports, as recently as 2024.

We are ****ing with our primary external customer.

---

Oh no!! We're asking for a fair trade deal, not a one sided one from the 1950s Cold War

And what do you think they're doing because guess where most of their stuff comes from


Canada was ready to sign this until it leaked to their media and they started screeching that it was "capitulating our sovereignty to America"

This isn't about rational economic decisions, it's about the Canadian Left only being in power through their "elbows up, we're the victim" BS

Quote:

---

Oh no!! We're asking for a fair trade deal, not a one sided one from the 1950s Cold War

---

I don't care about FAIR.

I care about "profitable."

We have a trade relationship that allows us to run a trade surplus, if you exclude energy. That is profitable.

AND WE NEED THAT ENERGY. That is more profitable.

So, we win. And then we win again.

Who gives two ****s that the casino is rigged against me, as long as I am walking out with a briefcase full of money?

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh no!! We're asking for a fair trade deal, not a one sided one from the 1950s Cold War

And what do you think we're going because guess where most of their stuff comes from

---

I don't care about FAIR.

I care about "profitable."

We have a trade relationship that allows us to run a trade surplus, if you exclude energy. That is profitable.

AND WE NEED THAT ENERGY. That is more profitable.

So, we win. And then we win again.

---

We only "need" it because blue NE states make energy too expensive

Canada thought our demands were reasonable and were ready to sign this until it leaked to their media at the 11th hour and they started screeching that it was "capitulating our sovereignty to America"

This isn't about rational economic decisions, it's about the Canadian Left only being in power through their "elbows up, we're the victim" BS

Quote:

---

Canada thought our demands were reasonable and were ready to sign this until it leaked to their media and they started screeching that it was "capitulating our sovereignty to America"

---

That's democracy.

Quote:

---

This isn't about rational economic decisions, it's about the Canadian Left only being in power through their "elbows up, we're the victim" BS

---

For The United States, it needs to be about rational economic decisions. My position is that the NAFTA relationship was good for all concerned.

1.) Other than energy, we were running a trade surplus with Canada.
2.) The energy is a commodity, and we needed it.

That looks pretty rational to me.

Molesting the supply chains of American factories looks irrational to me.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Canada thought our demands were reasonable and were ready to sign this until it leaked to their media and they started screeching that it was "capitulating our sovereignty to America"

---

That's democracy.

Quote:

---

This isn't about rational economic decisions, it's about the Canadian Left only being in power through their "elbows up, we're the victim" BS

---

For The United States, it needs to be about rational economic decisions. My position is that the NAFTA relationship was good for all concerned.

1.) Other than energy, we were running a trade surplus with Canada.
2.) The energy is a commodity, and we needed it.

That looks pretty rational to me.

Molesting the supply chains of American factories looks irrational to me.

---

"As long as you make things up, it's great deal for us!"

Just stop.

I get your position is the same as Canada: the only acceptable position is Canada gives nothing and the US goes back to the sweetheart 1950s deal

It's not going to happen and ultimately Canada needs us far more than we need them

Quote:

---

"As long as you make things up, it's great deal for us!"

Just stop.

---

What are you alleging that I made up? The trade numbers?

Food for thought. Texas runs a $8B annual trade surplus with Canada.

Texas is the leading export economy in America. Anything that slows the free flow of goods across international borders is bad for Texas. When a barrel of Canadian oil arrives at Beaumont, is refined by Texas labor, and is exported back out to Vermont, the everybody wins. But we win more than anybody else.

We import Canadian crude, perform the value-add, and then export refined products. That is winning.

Ok, accepting your position as accurate for purposes of discussion, what are the top 3 Texas businesses that will be impacted in the next 90 days?

That's a fine question.

I don't know the answer.

I do know that our biggest exports to Canada are in the computing hardware space (e.g., semiconductors) and refined products.

I don't know what the tariff retaliation is going to look like.

Our biggest import from Canada is probably crude oil. I don't have a sense of the available substitutes relative to the types of oil that our refineries can accept.

So it looks like US and Canada had agreed on a bunch of things but then Trump later added a new clause that Canada cannot do deals with other countries.

Does not seem fair, but then in international politics it is not about fairness but about leverage.

Quote:

---

Canada gives nothing and the US goes back to the sweetheart 1950s deal

---

I've been arguing economics, and you've raised geopolitics.

Fair enough. I'd rather have the Canadians talking to us and throwing an elbow at the ChiComs. Right now, we seem to be headed in the opposite direction, and I also don't like that.

The answer is none.

None of Trumps targeted tariffs are things Texas mass imports from Canada

Quote:

---

So it looks like US and Canada had agreed on a bunch of things but then Trump later added a new clause that Canada cannot do deals with other countries.

Does not seem fair, but then in international politics it is not about fairness but about leverage.

---

That is a reasonable read.

Quote:

---

The answer is none.

None of Trumps targeted tariffs are things Texas mass imports from Canada

---

That's half an answer.

We don't know the other half. Are the Canadians going to tariff the things that we export to them?

Remember, the Canadians are primarily our customer.

I am generally opposed to Trump's tariff policy, because Texas is a net exporter. We stand to get hit with stray bullets.

Paying a little more for imports is bad.

Losing out on exports is worse.

Is this how that "two teas" nonsense started?

You cannot look at this purely in a vacuum of who produces it cheaper at any point in time. As has been mentioned, there are other factors to consider.

This over simplification is how we got our posterior orifice stretched by China during COVID.

I thought folks simping for the IRGC was bad. Now they are simping for the commies in Canada.

Quote:

---

Is this how that "two teas" nonsense started?

---

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

The answer is none.

None of Trumps targeted tariffs are things Texas mass imports from Canada

---

That's half an answer.

We don't know the other half. Are the Canadians going to tariff the things that we export to them?

Remember, the Canadians are primarily our customer.

I am generally opposed to Trump's tariff policy, because Texas is a net exporter. We stand to get hit with stray bullets.

Paying a little more for imports is bad.

Losing out on exports is worse.

---

Yes, we get that you want Canada to have a unilateral one sided trade agreement because you think that makes us the big winner.

Ultimately though Canada like Europe will be brought kicking and screaming into the new world where they no longer receive unlimited military and economic largesse from America in exchange for nothing but loyalty that they no longer even attempt to pretend they possess

And while we can't do much about Europe becoming an IslamoMarxist hell hole allied with China, we absolutely aren't allowing Canada to go that route

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Is this how that "two teas" nonsense started?

---

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

---

That's how this board rolls, weird inside jokes that are only funny if you're going through the early stages of alzheimers/dementia

Quote:

---

Ultimately though Canada like Europe will be brought kicking and screaming into the new world where they no longer receive unlimited military and economic largesse from America in exchange for nothing but loyalty that they no longer even attempt to pretend they possess

---

I fear that you overestimate our leverage and underestimate the value of our traditional allies.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Ultimately though Canada like Europe will be brought kicking and screaming into the new world where they no longer receive unlimited military and economic largesse from America in exchange for nothing but loyalty that they no longer even attempt to pretend they possess

---

I fear that you overestimate our leverage and underestimate the value of our traditional allies.

---

Yeah go ahead and tell us all about the value of our traditional allies as they go full IslamoMarxist fascist

fullback44 said:

---

But but but we make the best hockey sticks …

Not for long when you lose your biggest hockey stick market …

---

They don't even do that, I'm in the hockey industry.

Bauer: China & Pakistan
CCM: China
Warrior: Mexico

Not surprised to see CCP-Dems rally to Canadians right now.

Chief strategist for Obama's presidential campaigns, David Axelrod, praises Mark Carney.

There was never going to be a trade deal. It's obvious now. Canadians will be made to suffer so the Democrats can use Canada as a bat to beat Donald Trump with during the midterm elections. pic.twitter.com/wOTRZhDTb4

— Tokyo Rosie (@RosieRocks28) August 23, 2026

Let alone the Obama DSA team.

Democrats hate America and will do anything to satiate their lust for power.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Quote:

---

Canada thought our demands were reasonable and were ready to sign this until it leaked to their media and they started screeching that it was "capitulating our sovereignty to America"

---

That's democracy.

Quote:

---

This isn't about rational economic decisions, it's about the Canadian Left only being in power through their "elbows up, we're the victim" BS

---

For The United States, it needs to be about rational economic decisions. My position is that the NAFTA relationship was good for all concerned.

1.) Other than energy, we were running a trade surplus with Canada.
2.) The energy is a commodity, and we needed it.

That looks pretty rational to me.

Molesting the supply chains of American factories looks irrational to me.

---

Fracking changed the math. We don't need Canadian O&G and only buy it because we get it at a discount.

BTW, I absolutely think part of this is about driving a bigger wedge between AB/SK and Ontario/Quebec. AB/SK isn't going to be excited about losing their O&G revenue and killing their economy so Quebec can get French labels on imports. They are already used and abused in their country even though they bring all the value and have little in common with the East. Secession seems like a no brainer now.