suds

You're probably right. I admit I was also wrong in not believing that Trump would take this thing this far. But we do have time to rectify the situation if saner heads prevail. Trump really isn't interested in Trudeau's plan over spending $1.3 billion for security over the next 6 years. He wants things done now. We might also have to get rid of a few sacred cows. If it makes good economic sense it's not necessarily appeasement.

Did we do that? Trump gave enough warning about what he was going to do. Canada should have been addressing issues after the last U.S. election. And as I've said, we've had 4 years to plan for this eventuality. I'm not siding with Trump or claiming he's right but we certainly dropped the ball on this one.

Yeah, the world's hegemon (and policeman) usually has a habit of pissing off certain countries from time to time. Personally, I'm glad it's the U.S. and not Russia or China. So, this argument you're referring to about Canada not needing to spend money on military because we shouldn't be supporting U.S. foreign wars is made by who exactly?? Canada is a member of Nato who wants to be a member on the cheap. Where do you get this silly nonsense from??

In 2011, Obama and the Harper administration signed a deal to increase trade cooperation on addressing security concerns and reducing trade barriers. So even back then, national security played an important role for opening borders to another country for trade purposes. Makes sense so far doesn't it? But the most profound statement made about the deal was made by Liberal leader Bob Rae who said.... "It's a bunch of pilot projects, it talks about improving co-operation with respect to certain things, but frankly I don't see the kind of changes that are going to be necessary to ensure that we continue to have strong, unharassed access to the U.S. market". As for Biden, his administration left the southern border completely open for his 4 years in office. As for the fentanyl, Canada is now in the business of exporting the drug and not just using it domestically. Should we not be a bit concerned about that either?

appeasement: the policy of giving in to a hostile power in an attempt to prevent trouble I don't see the U.S. as a 'hostile power'. I see them as a 'pissed off' power. Security concerns have been a topic of debate between U.S. and Canadian leaders for decades now. So, how would you rate our present government when it comes to such things as border security, national security, defense spending, illegal immigration, maintaining integrity over our electoral process, or the defending/protecting of sovereignty over our arctic territories? What realistic chance have we got defending our arctic against Russian or Chinese military aggression if we don't have the U.S. backing us? Or for that matter, what realistic chance has Denmark got against defending Greenland? Do you not see the pattern here? The U.S. is concerned about the national security of our country and arctic, Greenland, and the Panama Canal where the canal is run by a company with strong ties to the Chinaes government. And then there's the fentanyl problem where Canada 'is no longer just a simple producer of fentanyl but a global exporter'. I don't know about you but I'd give them a failing grade. For the last 4 years our government could have been preparing for the second Trump administration (knowing full well his ways of doing things), and what did they do? Nothing as far as I can see, or do you see things differently? Diplomacy is usually the best bet as an alternative to appeasement or trade wars. Unfortunately the diplomacy ship has sailed largely due in part to our own making. And to think if diplomacy was used on occasion (think Danielle Smith) you're labelled a traitor. Add to the mess we're in, a lame duck leader, and a prorogued Parliament. Ontario is calling for an election that we don't need but why waste a good emergency? In case a lot of Canadians don't realize it, anti-americanism is good for the Liberal Party and it's on a definite uptick. B.C. is calling for bans on certain U.S. exports but only from red states. Of course politics has nothing to do with any of this. We're left staring at mass layoffs, recession, market selloffs, and if our governments are going to start handing out money as I expect they will be (think covid) our debt is going to skyrocket likely bringing on another round of inflation. The only good thing about this is that it's going to take a while for things to take real damaging effect, and maybe will give us enough time to put those who know something about diplomacy back in charge. Your thoughts?

Tit-for-tat isn't the answer I agree. No, it's not the answer. Amazingly stupid people on this board who must really believe they're tough or something.

Absolutely. What they expect may happen on Feb 1, is that Trump may begin with a 2% export tariff, and then increase the tariff another 2% on each subsequent month until some kind of agreement is reached.

I know what supply management is. I've been against it, for it, and right about now I would question if it's worth saving if it's going to cause 25% tariffs across the board on all Canadian exports. Of course the farmers would have to be fairly compensated. As for the rest of it, you can get general information on the USTR Report website but for fine detailed information you need a paid subscription. So blather on all you want but don't expect any replies.

So what you're saying is the U.S. subsidizes it's agriculture but Canada does not? Is that about right? I'll let you prove it as I've no intention in wasting my time proving vague generalities. As for Canadian telecom operators operating in the U.S. ...... Bell last Nov. just invested heavily buying Ziply Fibre (the leading fibre provider in U.S. Pacific Northwest) for $5 billion USD. It's hoping to accelerate subscriber and revenue growth, but it's stock took a huge hit and has never rebounded. As for the Banking Act, I doubt the idea is to get rid of the Act altogether just certain parts of it that make it difficult for U.S. banks to get a foothold in Canada. As for Canadian Airlines 'protectionalist measures' I've no idea on what these measures are but the U.S. obviously is finding them to be an irritant. So I'm going to spend about as much time on this one as you have likely <60 seconds.

I doubt we will never know exactly what they want until we acknowledge the idea that we have to give up something. And don't bullshit me about country and sovereignty. I love and would defend my country, but our politicians are mostly a bunch of self serving, party first, bastards.

Ok Spanky, just answer my simple question. What do you want.... trade-off which would guarantee no new tariffs or trade war?

Just out of interest, why do you say that? Over the years I've listened to Lee countless times on the radio and enjoyed every minute of it. There's nothing political about him either. And there are more than a few experts who agree with him that a trade war with the U.S. does nobody any good especially us. And I agree with Doug that our politicians are using this emergency to only further their political goals. And if you don't agree with their madness then you're a traitor.

Aren't all banks either foreign or domestic regulated by Canadian regulators? And what about dairy products and other foodstuffs? Are they not regulated to a certain extent to meet Canadian standards? When one considers a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports which makes the more sense? A trade-off or a trade war?

Right. We're blessed with resources and live next door to the world's #1 economic powerhouse and leader of the free world. We should be thanking our lucky stars. But no, let's reject the U.S. and look for greener pastures elsewhere because Trump's a mean person or whatever other stupid reason you can think of. Get your head out of your ass.

Plain stupid. According to Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University, the main trade irritants that the U.S. has with Canada are well documented in the USTR (United States Trade Representative) reports. Every country the U.S. trades with has it's own report and 'irritants'. Protectionist policies of 'supply management' Telecom Act which shuts out U.S. telecom providers Banking Act with its protectionist measures to shut out U.S. banks The airline industry and its protectionist measures And most recently digital taxes that discriminate against U.S. digital giants According to Lee, Trump and his economic advisors see tariffs as a tool to leverage other countries into opening up their markets to U.S. firms. What our politicians should be doing is sitting down with the Americans, opening up our free trade agreement and be prepared to put all our sacred cows on the table, in return for guarantees of no tariffs. 'To fight American protectionism is to get rid of our own protectionism'.

According to Yahoo, Biden issued a 'blanket pardon' to pretty much the rest of his family minutes before the Trump inauguration.

Yeah ok. If everyone lived their life that way the world would probably be a whole lot better place. Can't argue with you.

It certainly does close all the loopholes. But what happens when people break laws or infringe on the rights of others? Does the state not have the right to use coercion then? You'd better maybe tidy that up a bit. And don't forget about the First Amendment as Fox has pointed out.

Rome wasn't built in a day either. And in the 1860's a million people died in civil war to set others free. Up to that point in time I doubt the world had ever witnessed anything quite like it. When the Declaration was written it was more of an inspiration to the type of country they wanted to create. And the present day Constitution reflects a lot of that.

Sorry to say this, but someone came up with something a little better... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Actually it's a good time for Danielle Smith to go and state her (and Alberta's) case, because anyone worth knowing (politically) is going to be there. She will likely find common ground with more than a few U.S. politicians. If she did nothing it would be a dereliction of her duties as Premier. Of course there are always a few maroons amongst us who think otherwise.

There would be more than a few obstacles to overcome. But if the EU could do it with the number of members it has, why couldn't Canada and the U.S.? It's worth looking into. Of course under the terms of any agreement some sovereignty would have to be given up.

Que sera sera.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Once you've built up a resistance to the constant insanity you become immune to it.

Can anyone explain what a theoretical multicultural post national state is supposed to look like? I also personally don't like the term 'nationalist'. If one loves or believes in their country I would consider them to be a patriot. It's far less confusing.