Signals.Cpl
-
Posts
3,052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Signals.Cpl
-
-
1 hour ago, capricorn said:
So true. The US has enough on its plate without having to worry about soothing the Canadian psyche.
So true, it is all Trudeau's fault...the tariffs on Mexico, China, Japan, European Union... its all Trudeau's fault. I don't like the guy, his policies or his party but there is a line to how much blame I can heap on him for things outside of his control. There is a dark period of time coming for the US and unfortunately we are tied to them as Canadians. When everyone's household expenses balloon by 20-50% due to tariffs and when businesses start closing down because they cannot compete with the exports of other countries the US will be up for a rude awakening but they are the once that elected an individual with zero decency, common-sense or integrity. Hopefully the American people will elect some competent adults in the next election to babysit the spoiled brat in the White House.
-
29 minutes ago, capricorn said:
We cannot know the outcome of any potential move until it's put on the table for analysis. As for the rest of your observations, each side must weigh any and all impact on their own industries before agreeing to demands or negotiating a compromise.
This doesn't seem to have been a major issue before Trump went on the warpath last week and it became an issue only after Trump tried to figure out an excuse as to why he is on the warpath.
-
1 hour ago, capricorn said:
Who says it's to suit a president? We have trade deals with many countries and we need to put our best foot forward by taking account of changing situations and conditions on the global stage.
Do you think that if Canada made unilateral concessions right now and did exactly as he wants it would make one shred of difference? We cannot really do much in the way of change until the US changes their policies on subsidies since if we change they can flood our markets with cheaper products, destroy our domestic food production and then our situation is going to be so much worse when you have to rely solely on Trump's America for food. There are certain strategic industries in any country that have to be maintained, maybe our system is not the best and maybe we should look into changing it but we should most definitely not allow subsidized American goods to destroy our domestic food production because then they not can destroy our economy, but they control our food supply.
-
1 hour ago, betsy said:
We don't know how that's working for them.....but obviously they think it works for them. Heck, they know more than we do.
We most definitely know how it is working for them, the price of still just went up by 25% and the American manufacturers and American people have nowhere to turn for reprieve. Everything that requires still at any stage of manufacturing, distribution or storage goes up in price and everything requires at least one of these categories. So the cost will be transferred to the American people right before the elections in November...
I don't think Trump sees this as working for him, I think he was under the impression that he will put tariffs on other countries and they will not respond in kind which became obvious as a false assumption on his part when the retaliations came around. I would love to see who he tries to blame for the rising unemployment rate when companies start shutting down and construction slows down dramatically. He took responsibility for Obama's policies that brought unemployment down to it's lowest level in a long time but now he will have to take responsibility for the rise in unemployment as well, or at the very least people will hold him responsible.
If Trump had imposed tariffs on Canadian steel only the US manufacturers could have imported from somewhere else, but he didn't so they can't because wherever they go will be the same price.
-
6 hours ago, betsy said:
Why would he, when he's using tarriffs as leverage to achieve his goal that EVERYONE remove tarriffs, barriers, and subsidies!
How is that Working for them? Mexico, Canada, China, EU and Japan placed tariffs on American exports... you know the recipients of 60%+ of America's exports. He went from having trade with little to no tariffs on either side to trade with ever increasing tariffs from all sides. The joke is on the American people because they will be the once paying more for everything. Canada might have tariffs on steel and aluminum but Trump put tariffs on everyone else as well which means Americans are still going to be buying from Canada because everyone else's steel price just went up 25% as well, but Mexico, Canada, China, EU and Japan can turn around and import from other sources what they need thereby increasing the trade imbalance. American exports become significantly more expensive worldwide while Canadian exports get more expensive in the US... right along with goods from everyone else. This should become pretty obvious by November and maybe common sense will prevail.
-
6 hours ago, betsy said:
That depends on what Canada want to achieve, right? That's why there is such a thing called, "negotiations."
Why didn't Trump bring this up in the negotiations then? He ran his mouth and decided to find a reason later... The problem with the US under Trump is that their credibility is shot to hell, he could agree to something in person and change his mind depending on what he sees on TV the next day or some offhand remark by some random person etc...
-
1 hour ago, capricorn said:
This trade impasse with the US should not preclude us from examining and if need be, amending our policies regarding trade. A prime example is supply management. And to those who would say such reflections would make us look weak in the eyes of foreign trade negotiators, I say our recent trade moves have not been exactly stellar.
Examining is one thing, but changing our own internal policies to suit a president who will just create another "fact" and create another version of "truth" doesn't make sense. Right now what we do or do not do with our dairy industry is a non-issue, from where I am seeing things Trump started the insults and attacks and only after he tried to find a reason why he was attacking. If we decide to do away with our policies he will just switch "reasons" and if he cannot find one he will make one up and if all else fails... blame us for burning down the White House.
This seems to be his one and only negotiation strategy as well, he doesn't clearly spell out what he intents to get from whatever negotiations he is doing at the moment and when all is said and done he states that they were a success because he got everything he wanted.
-
16 minutes ago, betsy said:
Why should anyone voluntarily give up any leverage they have? That should come up in negotiations, right? Surely they'll demand that from the USA!
Why should Canada change their policies then? Should we make unilateral concessions in the hope that Trump will negotiate with us? I don't know exactly how much value any treaty/agreement signed by the Trump administration has since after all many times even his advisors are caught off guard by his change of policy which usually comes out through twitter.
-
3 hours ago, betsy said:
To point at the USA's subsidy for her agriculture, is not a rebuttal. That's what he's working on - to remove subsidies.
Trump made it clear. He's aiming for EQUAL trading. No barriers. No tarriffs. No subsidies. That means, that goes for everyone - including the USA.
Maybe he should start by removing subsidies to American farmers... lead by example. He is attacking what he perceives as inequalities in trade with Canada while ignoring the fact that the US does the same thing in a different way.
QuoteThe prosperity of all friends and allies will ensure the triumph of the alliance in facing any disasters or adversaries. Indeed, economy is tied with national security. If you don't have the dough - your defense is weakened. You become a "dead weight" to your compadres!
He does not seem particularly interested in the prosperity of his allies, nor does he seem interested in the prosperity of the United States, because if he were interested in the prosperity of his allies he would not be trying to damage or destroy their economies and if he cared one shred about the prosperity of the United States beyond his own personal financial interests he would not be starting a trade war with the countries that take 65.5 % of American exports. Trump has placed the United States in the exact same situation that Canada is in because he is putting tariffs against countries that represent such a large % of American exports, if those countries reply in kind and escalate when Trump escalates, things will get very painful for the US. At the same time Trump is blaming China for the trade imbalance but the trade imbalance was and still is the fault of American corporations. Corporations outsource their manufacturing to China for cheaper labour and lax regulations and then import the final product into the United States and the US is complaining that China is taking advantage of the US when the US companies are taking advantage of the US. What % of China's exports to the US is actually made up of American companies that outsourced their manufacturing to China? When the American people get hit with a price increase in everything affected by the tariffs Trump imposed and then American manufacturers start suffering because of the Retaliation tariffs from America's trading partners the only name that will come up associated with blame would be Trump. After all if Canada and the US are in a trade war Americans can point the finger at Canada as the culprit, but if the US is in a trade war with China, Canada, Mexico, European Union and Japan then the problem is common in all of those trade war's and that is the US.
-
Untrue. You are allowed to use WHATEVER amount of force is required to arrest a suspect even if it's for unpaid parking tickets. His act of resistance is what escalates and justifies the level of force used. That includes the use of deadly force, if necessary.
Pulling out a pistol and shooting someone because you think they MIGHT be committing a crime is acceptable? Read the post I was answering to and then join the discussion.
-
So If a policeman thinks someone is about to commit a crime, they should kill them? I'm surprised jacee and eyeball came up with that.
It would depend on the crime since there is a small difference in degree after all. It goes from stealing a pack of gum from the convenience store all the way to mass murder and every vile crime in between. Using deadly force to prevent some crimes is acceptable, while using deadly force to prevent others should never be acceptable.
-
Sure but correlation isn't causation.
Cops do a very bad job preventing crime, they can deal with criminals after a crime has been committed. But when crime rates fall, they branch into new ways of trying to control the public and justify their existence.
So does that mean that if we cut police forces at all levels(Federal, Provicncial and municiple) by say 10 or 20% we wont see a riseing crime rate?
Crime rate falls, people demand budget cuts, police officer numbers cut after which crime rate climbs and people start wondering what the hell happened.
-
This editorial claims that policing costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation in Canada (at all 3 levels of government) despite a falling crime rate. It also claims that police resources are used inefficiently with $100k a year policeman doing all kinds of work that could be done by lesser trained staff.
So?
Do you think there might be a correlation between more spending on police and falling crime rate?
-
In case anybody has noticed, ISIS now has a foothold in Libya - the same Libya that Canada helped to "free" with our bombs.
Libya’s civil war has allowed Islamic State to consolidate its position in Libya. But perhaps the most worrisome offshoot of the caliphate is made up of its three “provinces” in Libya, where it is estimated to have some 3,000 fighters. The group has gained ground there amid the chaos of a civil war between rival governments, and their allied militias, in the east and west of the country. State structures do not exist to counter its rise. Weapons, from rifles to rockets, abound. And the borders are porous. These are “the perfect conditions for a terrorist campaign”, writes Wolfgang Pusztai, a former Austrian defence attaché to Libya.
BTW - The civil war in Yemen, long home to a deadly al-Qaeda franchise, has allowed a branch of IS to emerge from the country’s ungoverned spaces to attack government, military and religious targets.
Do the pro-bombing folks on this board still feel that we are doing the right thing in the Middle East?
What would be your solution for the middle east? If All of a sudden the west withdrew and locked down all borders leading into Europe and stop all refugee traffic into North America what do you think would happen? Do you think ISIS and the other band of merry nut cases would decide to leave us alone?
I am not pro-bombing because I don't see bombing as the solution to anything, bombing as a part of a well rounded strategy? Sure as a part of a strategy rather than the whole strategy.
-
I am for the One Child per family policy.
I repeat:
Population imbalance which leaves tens of millions of men without a prospect of having a stable longterm relationship might likely cause war wether small or large and would bring starvation and disease with it to some extent.
So you are FOR the one child policy even though it might in the long run produce some very negative results for the country, the region if not the world but at the same time you say they brought it on themselves?
-
"Population imbalance which leaves tens of millions of men without a prospect of having a stable longterm relationship might likely cause war wether small or large and would bring starvation and disease with it to some extent. "
Then the Chinese would be bringing it upon themselves wouldn't they?
What is your point here? The Chinese government made this policy decades ago and is now working to at least limit the impact to one generation. Are you of or against it?
-
I'm a pacifist. Having restrictions on the number of children that can be produced is a method of reducing a population without disease, starvation and war. It is obviously the better solution. Or perhaps you would prefer disease, famine and war as a method of reducing the population?
Population imbalance which leaves tens of millions of men without a prospect of having a stable longterm relationship might likely cause war wether small or large and would bring starvation and disease with it to some extent.
-
I am curious as to the reaction of people like you to say Pakistan doing it to Canada, sending their trash here? I don't get how an adult can think it is ok to dump our trash on other nations who are having problems as it is.Also, one of the terrorists that have been convicted (part of the Toronto 18) was born in Canada, but their parents were from Pakistan. the government is looking to get him his Pakistani citizenship and to deport his ass. I'm all for it.
We have a conservative government, we have a problem they can't find a solution to and we have addition to an antiquated law that does absolutely nothing for our security but makes them look like they are "doing something".Ok, what would prevent someone from adding other clauses? Uhh, votes, no doubt. Adding terrorism was controversial enough (when I think it should not have drawn up great controversy, but that's just me). I'm all for adding in rape provisions, mass manslaughter, but I suspect no MP would ever dare to add those.
In a few years there might be another conservative government, or some other party would be in power and they would need a distraction or the appearance of "action" so they push through another amendment and at every step of the way it becomes easier to justify.
-
Why should Israel have our backs in this situation? We live far away from the whole mess while they live right in the middle of it so it is in their best interest to find any solution with anyone they can.Israel's Netanyahu has launched a pre-emptive meeting with Putin so Putin does not confuse our coalition with Israel - Way to watch our backs Netanyahu, good to see that we can keep depending on Israel for support - NOT!
If Russia is the leader of the new Coalition, wouldn't it make sense for Israel to try and make nice with Russia? After all if sanctions and empty threats are not working maybe Russia keeping its ally in check might work to keep the tensions between Iran and Israel down.With the new Russian coalition, ours pales by comparison. We are already applying silly sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia as they start to take control of the region. Iran and Syria (and soon Iraq with American weapons) will be the only ground troops opposing the Sunni ISIS. If when Russia wants to it can waltz in and drive ISIS back underground for a few years.
Russia does not have to play by the same rules as the US, so to me it seems like a good idea to let them deal with it after all we(the west) have been in the region continuously for 12 years and it seems the situation is not improving let Russia try their hand.
-
Ok this law remains in force but every terrorist before committing acts of terror gives up his or her non-Canadian citizenship, what does this accomplish?I'm pretty sure it's upthread. I'm multitasking, but I do know that for sure "War crimes" was a reason for citizenship to be revoked. I'm 100% sure Harper mentioned this in the Munk debates.
Edit i'll spend the next few minutes Googling it
Edit II: Ah, I mixed up treason. Treason/terrorism etc is part of C51: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-citizenship-act-allowing-revocation-of-canadian-citizenship-takes-effect-1.3093333
The stuff from the stone ages was mentioned in the Munk debates (war crimes was one of the reasons) As far as whether or not that has happened, I'm not sure.
One question though, I just read this little gem:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-29/page-6.html#docCont and it seems initially you could lose your citizenship for a number of things (Warcrimes, treason, spying for the enemy etc…) Now the government of the day is adding on Terrorism sort of like what I have been saying, this adds other conditions to an antiquated law what is to stop them from adding something else at some other date? And nothing that PM Harper or anyone else can guarantee that someone at some point in the future might not make it for other crimes?
And why not remove the ability to have dual citizenship? Why add laws to disparage immigrants and dual citizens when it would be easier and simpler to just ban dual citizenship?
Does Canada throw a fake-citizen in jail for treason or just revoke their citizenship and send them to whatever country they have citizenship?
-
Terrorism is not enough for someone to lose citizenship. All Canadians have the right to blow up people in this country. #righttokill
So only some Canadians have that right? Good to know.
-
Is that for those born in Canada and they commit those actions, or is that for those who commit those acts and then lie about them to become citizens?Yes. There were provisions for this already. War crimes, treason etc.
And do you have a source that treason gets your citizenship revoked?
-
I remember reading it's the UN that would enforce the law. The countries that stone rape victims are not the ones I am referring to. France/UK as some examples do not stone their rape victims. Please try to be more sensible.
I don't really care if France/UK/Australia embraced this law, for me it is irrelevant because I will not live with the consequences of their decision nor can I change those decision.
You are basically saying that we should do it because Australia is doing it and it seems to you like a good Idea, well some countries as I mentioned stone rape victims and homosexuals and some in our very own country agree with them.
As for the UN, what on earth can they do to us if we made someone stateless? Will they invade us? Sanction us? Call us names?
-
You do realize other countries already do this right? revoking citizenship for convicted terrorists? Australia is already looking at options to make someone stateless.
You do realize other countries stone rape victims? By your logic we should stone rape victims too because others do it. What does another country marginalizing a portion of its citizens for a false sense of security have to do with us? The same arguments that apply for us here apply there as well but the only difference is that I am not Australian and therefore I have no interest nor right to put myself in the middle of their purely domestic arguments.
Ok, make them stateless, who will enforce that law? The UN? The US? Russia? Zimbabwe?
Trump-Trudeau Fall-Out
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
oh my god I feel so sorry for you right now its not even funny.