Donald Trump & NAFTA

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

pondering if you want to use blood oil to warm yourself. go for it.

i've read different numbers than you've produced to try and attack me because i realize the words you use are what dude from huffo po notes as fascist diminishing of people's ideas not pragmaticism.

refining oil in Canada should be encourged.

just like manufacturing wood. no shipping raw logs.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pondering if you want to use blood oil to warm yourself. go for it.

i've read different numbers than you've produced to try and attack me because i realize the words you use are what dude from huffo po notes as fascist diminishing of people's ideas not pragmaticism.

refining oil in Canada should be encourged.

just like manufacturing wood. no shipping raw logs.

I'm not attacking you. You're the one that called me fascist without understanding the word. It's not my fault you don't know what it means. Personally I rarely or never use the word and whenever I read it I usually look up the definition again. You might want to try that.

Yes, we should refine ALL our oil before shipping. I absolutely agree with you. Given that the oil industry is on a long decline it would make sense to build refineries in Alberta and refining it on the spot or refining it in Saskatchewan.  Please explain to me why that hasn't happened and isn't planned. Are Albertans not smart enough to refine oil? How is it Quebec and Newfoundland could afford to build refineries but Alberta can't? Why ship your jobs east or overseas or to the States? Is Alberta too rich to bother? Too poor to afford it? Seriously. I have an idea but I want to know.

Mighty Middle

Once again Mulcair has opened up Question Period saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. When is the Prime Minister going to tell off Trump. What are you afraid of?

Rev Pesky

From  Mighty Middle:

Once again Mulcair has opened up Question Period saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. When is the Prime Minister going to tell off Trump.

What would be the objective in 'telling off Trump' do you think?

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
pondering if you want to use blood oil to warm yourself. go for it.

i've read different numbers than you've produced to try and attack me because i realize the words you use are what dude from huffo po notes as fascist diminishing of people's ideas not pragmaticism.

refining oil in Canada should be encourged.

just like manufacturing wood. no shipping raw logs.

Pondering​ wrote:
I'm not attacking you. You're the one that called me fascist without understanding the word. It's not my fault you don't know what it means. Personally I rarely or never use the word and whenever I read it I usually look up the definition again. You might want to try that.

i never called you a fascist. i said your word usage is of the type dude in huff po illuminated. care to try again?

Pondering wrote:
Yes, we should refine ALL our oil before shipping. I absolutely agree with you. Given that the oil industry is on a long decline it would make sense to build refineries in Alberta and refining it on the spot or refining it in Saskatchewan.  Please explain to me why that hasn't happened and isn't planned. Are Albertans not smart enough to refine oil? How is it Quebec and Newfoundland could afford to build refineries but Alberta can't? Why ship your jobs east or overseas or to the States? Is Alberta too rich to bother? Too poor to afford it? Seriously. I have an idea but I want to know.

see i knew you knew what my real position is and were only trying to cast me in  non-factual light. good job on omin clean.

there are refineries in AB. they need another on at least. why do you think they're not doing so?

as you know my stated position is there should never ever be dilbit shipped by any means other than to a refinery.

there should be no oil tankers in any Canadian waters be it east coast or west coast.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

You said it yourself

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I actively fought against NAFTA in the day

Which means you support Trump stance in ripping up NAFTA

You are a jerk, go back into your corner and play with yourself. I support ripping up NAFTA I do not support Trump. He also supports the legalization of pot so I guess Trudeau the Liar is merely following Trump. Your logic is the equivalent of a Trump supporter.

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You are a jerk, go back into your corner and play with yourself. I support ripping up NAFTA I do not support Trump.

Can you READ what I said? I wrote "You support Trump STANCE on NAFTA".

http://rabble.ca/comment/5248781#comment-5248781

Nowhere did I suggest you support Trump, only his stance on NAFTA.

In the future I suggest you take a breath before responding to posts.

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

What would be the objective in 'telling off Trump' do you think?

That Canada is NOT afraid and we don't live in fear.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I do not support Trump's stance on anything. I support ripping up NAFTA and that is MY stance and always has been. Trump supports breathing air, you breathe air ergo you support Trump's stance on air. How could you ?

 

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I do not support Trump's stance on anything. I support ripping up NAFTA

Which is Trump stance as well.  Like it or not you and Trump agree on ripping up NAFTA. Trying to disassociate yourself with Trump stance on NAFTA, just twists yourself into a pretzel.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I do not support Trump's stance on anything. I support ripping up NAFTA

Which is Trump stance as well.  Like it or not you and Trump agree on ripping up NAFTA. Trying to disassociate yourself with Trump stance on NAFTA, just twists yourself into a pretzel.

So you are a Trump supporter because you support breathing air just like he does. Why do take the same stance as he does on the issue? Are you a fascist or just a Liberal troll.

Mighty Middle

So according to your logic just because you breath the same air as the NDP & socialists, doesn't mean you are an NDP supporter or a socialist.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
i never called you a fascist. i said your word usage is of the type dude in huff po illuminated. care to try again?

see i knew you knew what my real position is and were only trying to cast me in  non-factual light. good job on omin clean.

there are refineries in AB. they need another on at least. why do you think they're not doing so?

as you know my stated position is there should never ever be dilbit shipped by any means other than to a refinery.

there should be no oil tankers in any Canadian waters be it east coast or west coast.

Quote me promoting anything fascist or saying anything fascist.

Then there is no need for pipelines to carry unrefined or semi-refined oil so what's the problem? Refine all your oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Obviously you don't have enough refineries or there would be no need for any new pipelines or for shipping by rail.

I also object to tankers in the ocean but I don't see any other way for Newfoundland to export its oil and I don't think it's realistic to think any government is going to prevent oil companies from exporting oil. If EE is built it is to export oil. Thats why they want to build a new export terminal at the end of the pipeline where it reachs tidewater. How can you live in Alberta and not understand the goal of the oil industry is to reach tidewater for shipping oil to other countries.

Yeah, I think I got your position. You want EE built but no oil exported as a result of it. That is not possible. If EE is built the oil will be shipped out from the East Coast. They are not building it for Canadian refineries. They are just saying that it could displace some of the oil that is imported. The government will not prevent the oil from being shipped off the east coast. The oil industry will not built the pipeline if they are forbidden from exporting the oil from it.

Rev Pesky

From Mighty Middle:

That Canada is NOT afraid and we don't live in fear.

Pardon me for saying, but 'telling Trump off' is not necessary to convey our sense of security. In fact, it would achieve nothing.

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin 1951:

So you are a Trump supporter because you support breathing air just like he does. Why do take the same stance as he does on the issue? Are you a fascist or just a Liberal troll.

Everyone alive breathes, and must do so to stay alive. Not everyone opposes NAFTA. It is possible to oppose NAFTA for reasons other than those given by Trump.His position is that NAFTA has been a bad deal for the USA, costing jobs, etc.

I think kropotkin 1951 would disagree with Trump on that point, saying instead that NAFTA has been a bad deal for Canadian workers (I probably shouldn't put words in kropotkin's mouth). But the point is that opposition to NAFTA can take many different forms, so just opposing it doesn't automatically put you in the camp of others who oppose it.

As I've shown elsewhere, the real problem for the USA, and Canada for that matter, is not NAFTA, but the fact that manufacturing jobs have left for cheaper climes (China). If you want to blame somebody for the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, and the USA, China would be the first place to look.

We're better off than the USA in that respect, because the balance of trade between Canada and China is a Canadian deficit balance of roughly CDN $15 billion a year, while that for the USA and China is close to CDN $400 billion a year.  

The problem with Trump is he can't use a calculator, or if he can, he's decided to make up that huge trade imbalance with China by making us pay (sort of like making Mexico pay for a wall). What he apparently doesn't understand is that many industries, including the automobile industry, are fully integrated, and trying to create borders there will cost billions, and possibly millions of jobs. 'Course, nobody has ever said Trump was very bright...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

So according to your logic just because you breath the same air as the NDP & socialists, doesn't mean you are an NDP supporter or a socialist.

??? You seem to have missed my point. If you support breathing air then you support every politician that supports breathing air. So that includes Trump and yes it also includes Mulcair and Trudeau because I am sure they support breathing air as well. So depending on the policy you may find yourself supporting something that many parties and leaders support.  To say people are adopting the policy from one specific person or party that is shared by many politicians and parties is absurd. To imply that a coincidence on policy means you support Trump is an insult. It is too cute by half and frankly so juvenile that I am beginning to think you are someone who used to post here regularily to derail threads.  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

As I've shown elsewhere, the real problem for the USA, and Canada for that matter, is not NAFTA, but the fact that manufacturing jobs have left for cheaper climes (China). If you want to blame somebody for the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, and the USA, China would be the first place to look. 

I agree with most of what you posted above but not this part. Blaming China lets our oligarchy and the US oligarchy off the hook for their policies. Financiers are calling the shots and it seems all they want to build at home are weapons platforms.  They are doing very well by the deindustrialization. In my province we have lost the majority of our forestry manufacturing plants and they didn't go to China.

iyraste1313

Blame China?
No the fault is with Canadians for their trust, support and corruption in supporting the ideals of corporate managed Canada!
Not just NAFTA is to blame....Governments were supposed to be elected to manage the affairs of State? But given that Government control sits with their masters in the corporate world, their lobbyists (legalized corruption), their media control ad nauseum...clearly the only solution is to build parallel systems by the people who have at least figured things out...
How that parallel system may unfold requires serious attention...where o where will we find that?

Mighty Middle

After the Trump election Jagmeetr Singh also said we need to call out Trump. Wonder how he feels now that he is running for NDP leader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR_XTnJSWYM

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin1951:

I agree with most of what you posted above but not this part. Blaming China lets our oligarchy and the US oligarchy off the hook for their policies.

In that someone else has also commented on this particular part of my original post, I thought I'd better address it.

​I did not say I blamed China. I said 'if you want to blame someone'. which is not exactly the same thing. For the record, the problem is capitalism istself, searching for the cheapest labour. A combination of that, and of increasingly stringent environmental regulations had capital looking for a new home for manufacturing. It has gone here and there and everywhere, but the bulk of it went to China. Plentiful supply of cheap labour, and perhaps lesser regulations.

Most importantly it isn't coming back. It would require a deep drop in wages in North America in order to make manufacture in North Amercia palatable again. I doubt people are ready for that.

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

Most importantly it isn't coming back. It would require a deep drop in wages in North America in order to make manufacture in North Amercia palatable again. I doubt people are ready for that.

Justin Trudeau pretty much said the same thing, which prompted Jagmeet Singh to call out Trudeau saying he was "offended" by Trudeau saying that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_SJG8tu18U

quizzical

Trudeau didn't say the same thing. ffs

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet is siding with Mulcair and is calling on Trudeau to TELL OFF Donald Trump to his face once and for all!

On calling out Donald Trump:

“To have credibility on the international stage, we need to be strong on our beliefs when it comes to human rights. We need to have consistency on our beliefs of justice. We can’t pick and choose when it’s easy.”

NDPP

Team Trudeau's Precarious Friendship With Jared Kushner

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/team-trudeau-precarious-fr...

Mighty Middle

Jerry Diaz was on CTV Question Period this morning and he said he support Trump stance on NAFTA that it needs to be RIPPED UP. The sooner the better!

NDPP

CTVQP: 'Tweaking' or 'Blowing Up' NAFTA?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1129745

NDPP

NAFTA Renegotiation Is On: Will It Deliver TPP 2.0?

http://bit.ly/2qHQg1R

"...A more detailed Trump NAFTA renegotiation plan that leaked in late March described just what the corporate lobby is demanding: using NAFTA talks to revive parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Worryingly, already the 500 corporate advisers who got us into the TPP have been consulted on NAFTA renegotiations."

NDPP

All of our throats will be cut  in these  'renegotiations' as all around the table are merely corporate butchers deciding  the division of the choicest cuts. As the cattle in question, we should not be rooting for any  bloody hand or cleaver, but figuring out how to get ourselves off the fucking slab before the butchery begins.

NDPP

How NAFTA Surrenders Canadian Energy Sovereignty - And Gives the US Control Over Our Oil   -  by Linda McQuaig

https://t.co/kbLx2ldT28

"For more than 20 years, Canadian politicians have largely managed to keep the focus on lumber and cows, distracting us from the truly outrageous aspects of NAFTA: surrender of Canadian sovereignty..."

'A picture tells a thousand words'

Mighty Middle

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jerry Diaz was on CTV Question Period this morning and he said he support Trump stance on NAFTA that it needs to be RIPPED UP. The sooner the better!

Isn't there anyone whho is on side with Jerry Dias that NAFTA needs to be "RIPPED UP?"

Debater

ABACUS:

Trump and Canadians: it’s Not Going Well

June 10, 2017

http://abacusdata.ca/trump-and-canadians-its-not-going-well/

NDPP

I certainly support a 'ripped up' NAFTA. And Canada should as well. Donald Trump used to but was persuaded to 'renegotiate' by Trudeau, Freeland et al. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Trump’s Trade Policy Agenda: More Liberalization

President Donald Trump has been portrayed as a protectionist. His immediate cancellation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) upon assuming the presidency, as well as his support for the border adjustment tax proposed by the Republican leadership in Congress, seems to confirm this portrayal of his foreign economic policy leanings. However, a different conclusion emerges from a closer reading of Donald Trump's business interests, of his trade agenda as published in the 2016 Annual Report on the Trade Agreements Program by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and of American trade negotiation history. Trump will use large trade deficits to pressure trading partners to open up their markets. Companies which are successful in exporting to the U.S. market from those countries will be scared by protectionist announcements and will therefore most likely pressure their governments to give in to the demands of the Trump administration.

In other words, the Trump administration will further the liberalization of cross-border economic activities. From the perspective of development economics, one could call it protectionism, because it is about protecting the interests of the most advanced U.S. corporations which operate on the basis of intellectual property rights and access to large-scale data.

quote:

Trade Policy Agenda: Bilateral Negotiations

The president's trade policy agenda emphasises “breaking down unfair trade barriers in other markets” (USTR 2017: 1). The agenda is about promoting “reciprocity with our trading partners (USTR 2017: 1) and this shall be done by using “all possible sources of leverage” to “open foreign markets” (USTR 2017: 2 and 4), specifically by means of bilateral and not multilateral negotiations. In such negotiations, the country with the larger purchasing power has an advantage because companies from the other country are more dependent on the larger market for their profitability than vice versa. The U.S., with the biggest market and the biggest trade deficit, is clearly in a strong position in relation to all other nations, except possibly those collected in the European Union.

The agenda also mentions the specific tool that should be used in bilateral negotiations: section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, also called Super 301. Super 301 “authorises the USTR to take appropriate action in response to foreign actions that (…) are unjustifiable, or unreasonable or discriminatory, and burden or restrict United States commerce” (USTR 2017: 3). Who has the right to determine what is unjustifiable? Under this law it is the presidency. However, the U.S. became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995. The WTO includes a dispute settlement process. While the U.S. president might consider a trade measure of another country unjustifiable and respond with, for example, a retaliatory tariff under Super 301, the sanctioned country has the right to challenge the retaliatory measure in the dispute settlement process. Thus it will be the WTO dispute settlement board that will ultimately decide whether the trade practices of the incriminated country were justifiable or not.

In other words, Super 301 lost its bite when the United States joined the WTO. For this reason, the 2017 Trade Agenda takes pain to point out that “WTO reports are not binding or self-executing,” (USTR 2017: 3). It says, “The Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that, if a WTO dispute settlement report ‘is adverse to the United States, [the U.S. Trade Representative shall] consult with the appropriate congressional committees concerning whether to implement the report's recommendation and, if so, the manner of such implementation and the period of time needed for such implementation’,” (USTR 2017: 3). This prerogative is being reclaimed to make Section 301 effective again.

Sean in Ottawa

It might be more effective to seek to change these trade agreements than to try to end them. Trade itself is not the problem. The process and scope is. Canada relies on trade.

I have never been against global trade or efforts to manage it. I think in many cases attempts to terminate any agreement have been a failed strategy. If all that effort had been to oppose specific agreements, while demanding not a rejection of all agreements but a demand for terms to protect labour and the environment adequately.

I think it is time the left in Canada firmly articulated what a trade agreement that protected and promoted labour and environmental sustainability would look like. The world has never seen such an agreement becuase it has never been designed, not becuase it cannot be conceived. Once articulated it may be possible that the existing type of agrement could be rejected more forcefully and support for an alternative would grow to an unstoppable level.

I think these terms could be described and be the focus of our demand at the table rather than the unrealistic idea that a majority of Canadians would oppose all forms of trade agreement or even a requirement that we completely abandon what we have. Any position we take must account for the global trade environmet that we live in -- from GATT which eventually became the WTO. Canada has to act in its best interest, without just submitting to global trends but also without ignoring them or pretending that we can decide not to participate.

Trade agreements, as I have said many times here before, have a price on the way in and a price on the way out. I oppose bad deals prior to their establishment but would tend to support renovation -- as extensive as that may be -- rather than an attempt to roll back the clock. We cannot restore what was lost with the FTA and NAFTA -- as we said at the time we opposed those agreements. Our approach should not be what it was before they came in force. It should be based on what to do now. What demands based on our current situation can we bring and how best to state those in order to garner the political strength to see them through. This is a practical question not one of political philosophy.

As difficult as it may be for Canada to present an alternative vision, failing to do so and trying to check out is less effective, more dangerous and less liekly to achieve any of our objectives than engaging with it and bringing the principles that have not appeared in these agreements.

I will add that if Canada actually stood for what was required in NAFTA, then we would expose Trump as he likely would oppose them. Some of the things Canada could bring to the table would be popular in the US as well and the root cause of much of the US opposition.

Sean in Ottawa

Becuase I Incorrectly put a comment of mine in the wrong forum, NDPP answered there. My fault and I am copying his comment here:

NDPP

"The NAFTA Minister's 'Dear Friend'

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/04/08/taking-summers-advice-defies-logic

Their objectives, not 'our objectives'. Canada is in for a screwing."

Pages