Tariffs on Canadian Goods

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

The playbook is already out on Trump. Act like a tyrant, then when meeting with Trump, stroke his ego, then negotiate. Trump only seems to respect autocratic leaders. Narcissistic people that have remarkably thin skin (for a World leader) can easily be manipulated. Putin, Xi, and Kim Jung Un are well aware of Trump, and will play him like a violin. Ukraine, Taiwan, and South Korea will suffer. 

What did Canada, Mexico do ? We already went through this with him right?

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What did Canada, Mexico do ? We already went through this with him right?

This time it is different. All the democratic safeguards have been removed, and he has surrounded himself with horrible, yet unqualified "yes" men.  Trump is going to do whatever he wants, and nothing is going to stop him.

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This time it is different. All the democratic safeguards have been removed, and he has surrounded himself with horrible, yet unqualified "yes" men.  Trump is going to do whatever he wants, and nothing is going to stop him.

 

I think he negotiated this stuff on his own before. By that I mean, his team did it.  I think this time will be the same in terms of controls on him. He's going to get his people to do it, and his trade rep is respected. 

But I don't know if this is supposed to be a political victory, so he can say he renegotiated or if it's supposed to be a major change in how things work. 

 

If it's the latter, then it's trouble. It seems the changes in USAMC were not ground shaking. 

 

The strangest thing is... I had a lot of trouble finding analysis. I decided to just go directly to industry statistics and I couldn't find anything significant. It's like usamc did not happen.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What did Canada, Mexico do ? We already went through this with him right?

We did and we lost. Both Canada and Mexico had to give concessions. Jerome made the mistake I was speaking of him insultingly just before negotiations and it cost us. He's been bad-mouthing him again recently and not surprisingly all of trump's people have come out saying how much they hate Trudeau.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

We did and we lost. Both Canada and Mexico had to give concessions. Jerome made the mistake I was speaking of him insultingly just before negotiations and it cost us. He's been bad-mouthing him again recently and not surprisingly all of trump's people have come out saying how much they hate Trudeau.

 

We gave concessions but in the big picture it doesn't look like it had much impact.

Justin was not very smart in badmothing Trump

[Aristides]

If Trump puts a 25% tariff on Canadian products, Canada will have no choice but to reciprocate and NAFTA will be dead. Both sides will suffer but an upside is US companies will have to open branch plants in Canada like there was before NAFTA. Downside is everything will be more expensive for everyone on both sides of the border.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We gave concessions but in the big picture it doesn't look like it had much impact.

 

It did. I mean it didn't end the country or anything but it had a significant impact. Our countries trade surplus With the US went down substantially after Justin's negotiations and stayed there until just after covid where pent-up demand led to additional demand for some of our products for a short period, and now it's falling again. Considering our increase in population and general inflation it should have been about two times what it was in harper's day at this point but most years it didn't even reach anywhere close to what it was and even now except for one year barely exceeds it. That's 10 years later. 

Quote

Justin was not very smart in badmothing Trump

It wouldn't be smart with any foreign leader but with trump, and just before negotiations, it was just a terrible idea. And speaking out against trump during this election was also a bad idea and his people have come out swinging and talking about how absolutely terrible Justin is which is not a great place to start.

Mulroney, Chretien, harper.... You could disagree with their politics but all three of them did a good job working with the united states often even when there were disagreements or disputes. All three negotiated better trade agreements that moved our country forward. But Trudeau moved us backwards and he's not heading in the right direction right now

[NAME REMOVED]

Impressive. Mexico pushing back.

 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Impressive. Mexico pushing back.

 

 

I don't know if I'd call it much of a push. I mean he's right but there's nothing in there that's going to pressure or push trump to do anything different other than basic common sense. Which, I mean we can try that I suppose....

[Boges]

Trump always starts from bluster to start out a negotiation. 

Lots of US companies take advantage of the lower cost of labour in Canada to import products. This will hurt them as much as it hurts Canada. 

We went through this already before the last free trade agreement was signed. 

[herbie]

Oh just send an old unpainted CF18 to flatten Maralago and turn the demented f*cker into mush like his brain already is.
Paint a red star on it so they remember who their enemy actually is.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

Paint a red star on it so they remember who their enemy actually is.

His kindergarten teacher?  Probably the last time he saw one of those..... 

[BeaverFever]

On 11/26/2024 at 1:43 PM, CdnFox said:

It's not that simple. Remember who gets to keep the trade tariff money. If he really intends to tariff for the long term then he will collect massive amounts of additional government revenue which he can then use to significantly lower taxes. 

But I doubt that it will lead to a protracted trade war. This appears to be posturing for concessions

Remember who PAYS the tariff money:   American consumers,  not foreigners. So you’re celebrating Trump increasing taxes on Americans. 
 

And even if hypothetically Trump somehow returned the exact same amount in tax cuts (remember conservative doubts about carbon rebates returning carbon taxes to citizens) there is no way for to ensure that every person who spends money and paid tariffs is going to get the exact same amount back in tax cuts.  Especially not with republicans preference for giving tax cut primarily to the rich and corporations. 
 

I agree he is is definitely posturing for concessions and there is no way American business industry which is import dependent is going to go along with this crazy scheme, which is based on random numbers Trump completely pulled out of his ass. 
 

 

[BeaverFever]

13 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Impressive. Mexico pushing back.

 

 

Of course Trump doesn’t respond to facts or logic and has limited ability to process them so unfortunately Senora Sheinbaum hasn’t done much except waste some paper.  
 

She would have been effective if she instead told him what a handsome and stable genius he is, that she can tell he’s the best in bed of  any man in the world, offer to put $2Bn in Jared’s zero-return investment scam, have all Mexican state officials stay at Trump resorts, and offer her intelligence agencies to help him steal the 2028 election.   Oh and also make a lot of cheap ugly made-in-Mexico Trump sneakers, watches, bibles and other crap that Trump can sell to his gullible supporters for dozens of times more than they are worth. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Remember who PAYS the tariff money:   American consumers,  not foreigners. So you’re celebrating Trump increasing taxes on Americans. 
 

I don't recall celebrating anything  It's a little early for you to go off the rails and start making false statements isn't it?

However you also have to Remember who keeps the money. And it's the same American taxpayer. The money goes to the government and either reduces deficit or allows them to reduce taxes in other places. And you're assuming that the products can't be purchased somewhere else or made in America for less than the tariff amounts.

Which is why I said it's not so simple.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

And even if hypothetically Trump somehow returned the exact same amount in tax cuts (remember conservative doubts about carbon rebates returning carbon taxes to citizens) there is no way for to ensure that every person who spends money and paid tariffs is going to get the exact same amount back in tax cuts.  Especially not with republicans preference for giving tax cut primarily to the rich and corporations. 
 

That's very true, it would probably affect the rich more than anybody. Consumption taxes are like that and it's basically a consumption tax.   

At the end of the day though tariffs aren't desirable. Tariffs are a bad way of doing business and getting what you want. Sometimes they're the only way and sometimes they're expedient but the reality is they're not a great idea.

But they're not quite the disaster some suggest they are. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I agree he is is definitely posturing for concessions and there is no way American business industry which is import dependent is going to go along with this crazy scheme, which is based on random numbers Trump completely pulled out of his ass. 

For sure. This is about negotiating position.

[BeaverFever]

This is how Canada should deal with Donald Trump, irrational actor

 

ANDREW COYNE

PUBLISHED 29 MINUTES 

Good to see no one is panicking.

The president-elect of the United States, in a late-night social-media outburst, has declared he would impose a 25-per-cent tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico – on his first day in office, yet.

He does not necessarily have that authority – constitutionally, tariffs are Congress’s responsibility – but would have to rely on untested emergency powers, exposing him to legal challenges. If implemented, the tariffs would cause immense havoc, not least for Americans, raising prices for consumers and blowing up integrated continental supply chains, exposing him to political blowback. They are also, needless to say, explicitly prohibited under the trilateral free trade agreement to which he is a signatory.

The whole idea is so insane that everyone assumes it must be a negotiating tactic – that when Donald Trump ties the tariffs to the two countries’ alleged failure to stem the flow of fentanyl and illegal aliens into the United States, he means he would lift the tariffs if they somehow achieved this. Or if they did something else, or something in addition. But no one knows. He also likes tariffs for their own sake. For that matter, he likes issuing threats for their own sake.

And he’s not even president yet.

Nevertheless, hardly had the post left his fingertips when prominent voices in this country were heard demanding – well, demanding all sorts of things, none of them sensible. Even in advance of Mr. Trump’s latest threat, the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, had called for Mexico to be thrown out of NAFTA. Now he wants to blow up bilateral trade, demanding that Canada retaliate against Mr. Trump’s insane and self-destructive tariffs with insane and self-destructive tariffs of its own.

Other voices urged a more – what shall we call it? – conciliatory line. Or perhaps “servile” would be better: what the historian and political theorist Timothy Snyder has called “anticipatory obedience.” The Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, not content with urging the Canadian government to negotiate at the point of a metaphoric gun, actively took Mr. Trump’s side, noting his “valid concerns” about “illegal activities at our shared border.” The Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, agreed, noting “we can all benefit from additional border security stopping the flow of illegal drugs and migrants across our borders.”

The Premier of Quebec, François Legault, took to social media to fret about the “enormous risk” to Quebec’s economy from Mr. Trump’s tariff threat and demand that “everything possible” be done to avoid it. He offered Justin Trudeau “the full co-operation of the Quebec government” in this regard, by which he meant, as he later clarified, that Quebec must have a place at the negotiating table.

As for the federal opposition leaders, they ranged from belligerent (Jagmeet Singh wants a “war room” to “fight like hell”) to irrelevant (Pierre Poilievre says the tariffs are an occasion to axe the carbon tax, as if this had anything to do with anything). Various others could be heard insisting that the Trump tariff threat was proof that it was now time to do whatever they had always advocated doing.

All of which is not to endorse the Trudeau government’s approach, so far as it has one. But if the government seems uncertain about how to proceed, it is at least not taking out a billboard to advertise how panicked and compliant it is. It has at least not seized the opportunity, in the early days of what looks to be a lengthy crisis, to say something provably stupid, or appallingly self-serving. It has at least not turned its guns inward, or deserted the country in the face of the enemy.

Let’s all take a deep breath, shall we? And after we have, let us agree that there is no practical benefit in attempting to meet Mr. Trump’s demands:

• because it is wrong to appease a bully, for starters;
• because to do so can only invite further demands, and further threats;
• because his “concerns” are not, in fact, “valid” – the amount of fentanyl entering the U.S. from Canada is trivial (U.S. customs agents seized a grand total of 43 pounds of it in the last fiscal year), the number of illegal migrants scarcely less so (U.S. border patrol officers stopped fewer than 24,000 people last year, compared to more than 1.5 million crossing from Mexico);
• because it is each country’s responsibility to control its own borders, that is, to police the entry of people and goods, not to demand that others police their exit;
• because if it were such an “easily solvable” matter as Mr. Trump, in his endless devotion to easy solutions, pretends, it would have been done long ago.

There is not, in short, a great deal we can do to satisfy Mr. Trump, and if there were, we would have no assurance that he would remain satisfied for long. There is no point in negotiating with terrorists.

As Trump threatens tariffs, here are five things we know so far

(It’s not even a negotiation. A negotiation is when each side comes to the table, not only with demands, but with something to offer in return. Just threatening to do something horrible if your demands are not met is not negotiating. It’s blackmail. It’s the difference between offering to write a story in exchange for money and threatening to.)

More than that, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Trump – a trap that those of us in the reality-based world continue to fall into, which is to attribute to him a rationality he does not possess. It is irrational enough to threaten to impose 25-per-cent tariffs on your nearest neighbours and major trading partners, for problems they did not cause. It is doubly irrational as a response to problems that are, in fact, subsiding: The number of unauthorized crossings on the Mexican border is falling, not rising (monthly encounters in September, at 54,000, were down 75 per cent from the year previous; for the entire fiscal year, they were down 14 per cent), as are the number of fentanyl deaths (off 10 per cent this year).

Nevertheless, there is at least in this a notional rationality, a potential for rationality, a theoretical connection between putative cause and putative effect, if not in this world then in some world it is possible to imagine. The idea, often expressed, that Mr. Trump is essentially “transactional” – that he may not be guided by the usual principles of statecraft, let alone any of the higher ideals, but is at least intelligible in purely “what’s in it for me” terms – is based on attributing to him a kind of grubby rationality, as if he were merely a debased version of ourselves.

Except there’s no evidence that that’s how he actually thinks. He is not rational, and does not think far enough ahead to connect cause and effect in the usual ways. He is a narcissistic psychopath – a Neroist, as I have called him. His primary motive is not self-interest, as we might understand it, but self-aggrandizement, the constant nourishing and enlargement of his vision of himself, which in his case can only be achieved by destroying everything else.

In every situation, then, he will do, not merely the wrong thing, but the worst possible thing; the worse it is, and the more damage it causes, the more the people he despises object, and the greater his feeling of triumph. How else to explain, for example, his choices for cabinet: an apparent Russian asset for Director of National Intelligence, a prophet of civil war for Defence Secretary, a vaccine-denier for Health Secretary, an alleged statutory rapist for Attorney-General and so on.

I think we have to look at the current crisis, then, not through the lens of trade or diplomacy or even extortion, but through the psychology of a deeply disturbed man. Grovelling before him, for example, as some of our Premiers seem inclined to do, is unlikely to assuage him: It’s the sort of thing he lives for.

Caving to his demands, likewise, is futile: not because he will rationally conclude that our willingness to accept a first demand suggests we might concede to others, but because the dopamine high he experiences from dominating others will take control of him, demanding to be supplied with further hits.

What should we do instead?

• 1. Play for time. Whatever he might imagine, Mr. Trump was elected with the thinnest of mandates. He is, what is more, a lame duck: The clock began ticking on his presidency from the day he was elected, as it is ticking on his mental and physical health. His thirst for dictatorship is real, but is in competition with his emotional instability and sheer incompetence. The longer time goes on, the more mistakes he is likely to make, and the weaker he is likely to become, politically and otherwise.
• 2. Prey upon his weaknesses. Probe his psyche. Figure out his break points. Do not be afraid to annoy him. Most people do stupid things when they’re angry; multiply by 100 in the case of Mr. Trump. Tempt him to give into his demons; lead him onto the rocks of his own intemperance. His mistakes are your opportunities.
• 3. Stand together. Work with allies, in Canada – yes, that means getting the Premiers onside, if only to shut them up – in Washington and state capitals, around the world. We are dealing with a dangerous lunatic. That is inescapable, at least for the foreseeable future. As with the Soviet Union, we cannot defeat him. But we can contain him.
• 4. Stand up straight. Ultimately we can’t control what Mr. Trump does. We can, however, control what we do. Maybe we can’t prevent him from wrecking the North American economy, or whatever else he decides to do to us. But we can at least maintain our dignity, our composure and our self-respect. That’s not the only thing that matters, but it’s something.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-this-is-how-canada-should-deal-with-donald-trump-irrational-actor/?login=true

Edited November 28, 2024 by BeaverFever

[cannuck]

When I read or hear people parroting the 50 lb. or 50Kg or whatever of fentanyl being seized at the Can/US border as some indication of success, I go back to LMFAO.   It's success, alright - success at moving almost ALL of the traffic without being apprehended.  Half the economy of the BC lower mainland is the drug industry that feeds the Yankee addiction.  Why do you think the recent discovery of a massive international production lab facility was barely an eyebrow raiser in the region?

Let's not forget Trump's job is to worry about HIS country, not ours, not Mexico.  The largest impediment to moving forward is that one of the three leaders involved is extremely intellectually gifted, whereas the other two would struggle to rise to the task of being a WalMart greeter. 

[NAME REMOVED]

30 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The largest impediment to moving forward is that one of the three leaders involved is extremely intellectually gifted, whereas the other two would struggle to rise to the task of being a WalMart greeter. 

Who would be the second WalMart greeter....Trudeau or the Mexican PM?

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Who would be the second WalMart greeter....Trudeau or the Mexican PM?

THAT should be patently obvious.   Ask anyone who has dealt with either of them, and you would know in a flash by process of elimination.   Ask anyone who has dealt with BOTH of them, and you would probably get a smack up the side of the head for asking such an obvious question.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

When I read or hear people parroting the 50 lb. or 50Kg or whatever of fentanyl being seized at the Can/US border as some indication of success, I go back to LMFAO.   It's success, alright - success at moving almost ALL of the traffic without being apprehended. 

In other words as usual Republicans propagandists have ZERO evidence to support their made-up claims. I could just as easily say Trump himself is smuggling drugs into Canada and just hasn’t been caught 

 

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

The largest impediment to moving forward is that one of the three leaders involved is extremely intellectually gifted,

LMAO Trump is objectively not intellectually gifted. In fact as numerous people from his first administration have attested, and as clearly evident from hearing him speak for 2 minutes, his intellect is well below anyone operating at his level of leadership and is more at the level of someone with a high school education at best. 
 

The Mexican President was a career scientist by profession (as were both of her parentsa biologist and a chemical engineer). She has degrees in physics and engineering including a Masters and PhD. Talk about a REAL self-made success story. She is orders of magnitude more intellectually gifted than dumbass Trump whose only talent was being born rich.  But I suspect that like most right wing bullshitters you didn’t know a single fact about her before deciding to make up false accusations about her. 

Edited November 28, 2024 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

This is how Canada should deal with Donald Trump, irrational actor

 

ANDREW COYNE

PUBLISHED 29 MINUTES 

Good to see no one is panicking.

The president-elect of the United States, in a late-night social-media outburst, has declared he would impose a 25-per-cent tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico – on his first day in office, yet.

He does not necessarily have that authority – constitutionally, tariffs are Congress’s responsibility – but would have to rely on untested emergency powers, exposing him to legal challenges. If implemented, the tariffs would cause immense havoc, not least for Americans, raising prices for consumers and blowing up integrated continental supply chains, exposing him to political blowback. They are also, needless to say, explicitly prohibited under the trilateral free trade agreement to which he is a signatory.

The whole idea is so insane that everyone assumes it must be a negotiating tactic – that when Donald Trump ties the tariffs to the two countries’ alleged failure to stem the flow of fentanyl and illegal aliens into the United States, he means he would lift the tariffs if they somehow achieved this. Or if they did something else, or something in addition. But no one knows. He also likes tariffs for their own sake. For that matter, he likes issuing threats for their own sake.

And he’s not even president yet.

Nevertheless, hardly had the post left his fingertips when prominent voices in this country were heard demanding – well, demanding all sorts of things, none of them sensible. Even in advance of Mr. Trump’s latest threat, the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, had called for Mexico to be thrown out of NAFTA. Now he wants to blow up bilateral trade, demanding that Canada retaliate against Mr. Trump’s insane and self-destructive tariffs with insane and self-destructive tariffs of its own.

Other voices urged a more – what shall we call it? – conciliatory line. Or perhaps “servile” would be better: what the historian and political theorist Timothy Snyder has called “anticipatory obedience.” The Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, not content with urging the Canadian government to negotiate at the point of a metaphoric gun, actively took Mr. Trump’s side, noting his “valid concerns” about “illegal activities at our shared border.” The Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, agreed, noting “we can all benefit from additional border security stopping the flow of illegal drugs and migrants across our borders.”

The Premier of Quebec, François Legault, took to social media to fret about the “enormous risk” to Quebec’s economy from Mr. Trump’s tariff threat and demand that “everything possible” be done to avoid it. He offered Justin Trudeau “the full co-operation of the Quebec government” in this regard, by which he meant, as he later clarified, that Quebec must have a place at the negotiating table.

As for the federal opposition leaders, they ranged from belligerent (Jagmeet Singh wants a “war room” to “fight like hell”) to irrelevant (Pierre Poilievre says the tariffs are an occasion to axe the carbon tax, as if this had anything to do with anything). Various others could be heard insisting that the Trump tariff threat was proof that it was now time to do whatever they had always advocated doing.

All of which is not to endorse the Trudeau government’s approach, so far as it has one. But if the government seems uncertain about how to proceed, it is at least not taking out a billboard to advertise how panicked and compliant it is. It has at least not seized the opportunity, in the early days of what looks to be a lengthy crisis, to say something provably stupid, or appallingly self-serving. It has at least not turned its guns inward, or deserted the country in the face of the enemy.

Let’s all take a deep breath, shall we? And after we have, let us agree that there is no practical benefit in attempting to meet Mr. Trump’s demands:

• because it is wrong to appease a bully, for starters;
• because to do so can only invite further demands, and further threats;
• because his “concerns” are not, in fact, “valid” – the amount of fentanyl entering the U.S. from Canada is trivial (U.S. customs agents seized a grand total of 43 pounds of it in the last fiscal year), the number of illegal migrants scarcely less so (U.S. border patrol officers stopped fewer than 24,000 people last year, compared to more than 1.5 million crossing from Mexico);
• because it is each country’s responsibility to control its own borders, that is, to police the entry of people and goods, not to demand that others police their exit;
• because if it were such an “easily solvable” matter as Mr. Trump, in his endless devotion to easy solutions, pretends, it would have been done long ago.

There is not, in short, a great deal we can do to satisfy Mr. Trump, and if there were, we would have no assurance that he would remain satisfied for long. There is no point in negotiating with terrorists.

As Trump threatens tariffs, here are five things we know so far

(It’s not even a negotiation. A negotiation is when each side comes to the table, not only with demands, but with something to offer in return. Just threatening to do something horrible if your demands are not met is not negotiating. It’s blackmail. It’s the difference between offering to write a story in exchange for money and threatening to.)

More than that, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. Trump – a trap that those of us in the reality-based world continue to fall into, which is to attribute to him a rationality he does not possess. It is irrational enough to threaten to impose 25-per-cent tariffs on your nearest neighbours and major trading partners, for problems they did not cause. It is doubly irrational as a response to problems that are, in fact, subsiding: The number of unauthorized crossings on the Mexican border is falling, not rising (monthly encounters in September, at 54,000, were down 75 per cent from the year previous; for the entire fiscal year, they were down 14 per cent), as are the number of fentanyl deaths (off 10 per cent this year).

Nevertheless, there is at least in this a notional rationality, a potential for rationality, a theoretical connection between putative cause and putative effect, if not in this world then in some world it is possible to imagine. The idea, often expressed, that Mr. Trump is essentially “transactional” – that he may not be guided by the usual principles of statecraft, let alone any of the higher ideals, but is at least intelligible in purely “what’s in it for me” terms – is based on attributing to him a kind of grubby rationality, as if he were merely a debased version of ourselves.

Except there’s no evidence that that’s how he actually thinks. He is not rational, and does not think far enough ahead to connect cause and effect in the usual ways. He is a narcissistic psychopath – a Neroist, as I have called him. His primary motive is not self-interest, as we might understand it, but self-aggrandizement, the constant nourishing and enlargement of his vision of himself, which in his case can only be achieved by destroying everything else.

In every situation, then, he will do, not merely the wrong thing, but the worst possible thing; the worse it is, and the more damage it causes, the more the people he despises object, and the greater his feeling of triumph. How else to explain, for example, his choices for cabinet: an apparent Russian asset for Director of National Intelligence, a prophet of civil war for Defence Secretary, a vaccine-denier for Health Secretary, an alleged statutory rapist for Attorney-General and so on.

I think we have to look at the current crisis, then, not through the lens of trade or diplomacy or even extortion, but through the psychology of a deeply disturbed man. Grovelling before him, for example, as some of our Premiers seem inclined to do, is unlikely to assuage him: It’s the sort of thing he lives for.

Caving to his demands, likewise, is futile: not because he will rationally conclude that our willingness to accept a first demand suggests we might concede to others, but because the dopamine high he experiences from dominating others will take control of him, demanding to be supplied with further hits.

What should we do instead?

• 1. Play for time. Whatever he might imagine, Mr. Trump was elected with the thinnest of mandates. He is, what is more, a lame duck: The clock began ticking on his presidency from the day he was elected, as it is ticking on his mental and physical health. His thirst for dictatorship is real, but is in competition with his emotional instability and sheer incompetence. The longer time goes on, the more mistakes he is likely to make, and the weaker he is likely to become, politically and otherwise.
• 2. Prey upon his weaknesses. Probe his psyche. Figure out his break points. Do not be afraid to annoy him. Most people do stupid things when they’re angry; multiply by 100 in the case of Mr. Trump. Tempt him to give into his demons; lead him onto the rocks of his own intemperance. His mistakes are your opportunities.
• 3. Stand together. Work with allies, in Canada – yes, that means getting the Premiers onside, if only to shut them up – in Washington and state capitals, around the world. We are dealing with a dangerous lunatic. That is inescapable, at least for the foreseeable future. As with the Soviet Union, we cannot defeat him. But we can contain him.
• 4. Stand up straight. Ultimately we can’t control what Mr. Trump does. We can, however, control what we do. Maybe we can’t prevent him from wrecking the North American economy, or whatever else he decides to do to us. But we can at least maintain our dignity, our composure and our self-respect. That’s not the only thing that matters, but it’s something.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-this-is-how-canada-should-deal-with-donald-trump-irrational-actor/?login=true

Frankly it's a dumb article. The author sounds like the point is panicking.

Are there suggestions of a so-called better way are Completely retarded. Play for time? What the hell is the point of that? He's going to be in power for 4 years.

Pray upon his weaknesses? Does the author think this is some sort of 1970s kung fu movie? It doesn't mean anything. Summit it's a suggestion to respond to hostility with hostility that's rarely the best way to go especially with trump

Working together is a dumb thing to say. Obviously it's advantageous for everyone to be on the same page but that's not actually a methodology of addressing this kind of thing

And stand up straight it's just absolutely childish.

The way you deal with trump is relatively simple because at the end of the day trump is relatively simple. You ignore the threats, you acknowledge his concerns, you offer him praise direct or indirect  (Of COURSE we want to sit down and resole any concerns such a great friend like President trump has, he's just looking out for his people!"  and Above all you will build a relationship because that's what he's all about. Smart people get this

Then you genuinely negotiate, you look at the concerns and you address them as best you can. We do have a very real problem with bad actors sneaking into America from Canada. There may be fewer of them doing it but the ones doing it that they're catching are the really bad guys that America really doesn't want.

 

All we need is talented negotiators to deal with this. Not brain dead Dillards With useless pithy sayings

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

We do have a very real problem with bad actors sneaking into America from Canada. There may be fewer of them doing it but the ones doing it that they're catching are the really bad guys that America really doesn't want.

Do we?  Canada probably has an even bigger problem with bad actors entering Canada from the US. All those guns and drugs don’t smuggle themselves 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Play for time? What the hell is the point of that? He's going to be in power for 4 years.

The President is not king. The author is suggesting to stall to let pressure from within the US such as states, congress and lobbyists etc take its toll. And after a couple of years if not sooner he will be a lame duck president anyway 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Working together is a dumb thing to say. Obviously it's advantageous for everyone to be on the same page but that's not actually a methodology of addressing this kind of thing

 

Not dumb at all.  Strength in numbers. Being on the sam page as like-minded allies in congress and state capitals and provinces, coordinating message and activities is an obvious no-brainer. What would be dumb would be if they WEREN’T cooperating and coordinating with each other even though they all have same goal. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And stand up straight it's just absolutely childish.

Not at all. Although it’s not really helpful advice in terms of how to prevent his disastrous policy it’s just advice how not to damage your own image and reputation while doing it. 
 

 

[NAME REMOVED]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

She would have been effective if she instead told him what a handsome and stable genius he is, that she can tell he’s the best in bed of  any man in the world, offer to put $2Bn in Jared’s zero-return investment scam, have all Mexican state officials stay at Trump resorts, and offer her intelligence agencies to help him steal the 2028 election. 

 

Looks like Putin has mastered that...

[herbie]

Some people are never going to admit DonOld is such an imbecile he thinks Border Security is for other countries to stop people leaving, only in the US are border guards are to stop people coming in. That 1 is as bad as 99 and 40 lbs of meth is as bad as 40 tons.
He forgets the very Trade Deal he's bragged about for years and impose tariffs.... yeah... duh.

We could impose a 100% duty on US goods unless the USA stops guns from coming into Canada. Search every vehicle leaving on their side of the border first, eh? See if they have 'permission' to leave the USA.
The guy won by being an butthole to as many as he could, his logical conclusion is that now he represents all Americans he should show them he's being Great by being an  butthole to all his friends and allies. It's ALL he knows.

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 But I suspect that like most right wing bullshitters you didn’t know a single fact about her before deciding to make up false accusations about her. 

She has been in our associates' Toronto  offices several times before being elected.  She is no stranger to any of us, and someone we greatly admire for her academic and professional background.