Donald Trump & NAFTA

161 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Donald Trump & NAFTA

===

Mighty Middle

Donald Trump wants to (in his words) rip up NAFTA and get a better deal for America.

rankandfile.ca wrote an op-ed titled "Let's Hate NAFTA Like We Used To"

http://rankandfile.ca/2016/07/12/lets_hate_nafta_like_we_used_to/

What are your thoughts about Trump wanting to rip up NAFTA? And what the NDP response should be.

josh
Rev Pesky

The Canadian government cannot prevent Trump from blowing up NAFTA if he wants to. What the existing government's, or indeed the NDP's, position should be is that they will bargain hard to preserve those items that benefit Canadian workers.

Worthwhile to remember though, that plenty of businesses in the USA will not want Trump to blow up NAFTA. I think it's one of those things he campaigned on that will quietly die off. A lot of US workers depend on the Canadian market for their jobs. According to a Canadian embassy (in Washington) study, over 7,000,000 USA workers depend on trade with Canada. In addition, one of the largest businesses, automobile manufacture, is completely integrated.

No, I think when saner heads prevail, the 'blowing up of NAFTA' will turn into a few tweaks of some items.

josh

Trade would continue with or without NAFTA.   Just as there was trade before NAFTA.

Mighty Middle

With Trump wanting to rip up NAFTA isn't it a good opportunity for the NDP to tap into the growing anti-globalization movement? Niki Ashton is already aligning herself with that faction saying

"You privatize it? We nationalize it. You deregulate it? We regulate it.”

It worked so well with Trump to tap into union workers in rust belt states. That is the NDP constituency.

So why not go the Trump route and say NAFTA needs to be ripped up. Especially now that Trudeau tapping Mulroney as a consultant in these renegotaion tactics.

bekayne

Mighty Middle wrote:

With Trump wanting to rip up NAFTA isn't it a good opportunity for the NDP to tap into the growing anti-globalization movement? Niki Ashton is already aligning herself with that faction saying

"You privatize it? We nationalize it. You deregulate it? We regulate it.”

It worked so well with Trump to tap into union workers in rust belt states. That is the NDP constituency.

So why not go the Trump route and say NAFTA needs to be ripped up. Especially now that Trudeau tapping Mulroney as a consultant in these renegotaion tactics.

Trump wants to regulate? On what planet?

Mighty Middle

bekayne wrote:

Trump wants to regulate? On what planet?

Trump wants to DEregulate. Ashton says she will REgulate

Meanwhile Tom Mulcair has weighed in

Mulcair questions Mulroney's mandate

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said that turning to Mulroney shows the Liberals aren't serious about improving the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

Mulroney negotiated the original NAFTA between Canada, the United States and Mexico in the 1990s.

"Go to the communities in southwestern Ontario that have been hard-hit by NAFTA, and ask them whether they want the guy who wrote NAFTA talking to the Americans now," Mulcair said Wednesday morning. 

"What's [Mulroney's] position going to be other than to defend the deal that he put in place in the first place? It goes back to Justin Trudeau again. What is his position on NAFTA? He hasn't articulated one."

Mulcair also raised the question of whether Mulroney is being paid by the government. The Prime Minister's Office later said Mulroney is not being paid.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulroney-cabinet-nafta-1.4056112

Maybe if Mulcair unleashed ANGRY Tom (in the 2015 election) and said he'd rip up NAFTA, he could have kept the Liberals to a minority in Election 2015.

kropotkin1951

Okay so he is not on the government books but did he bring an empty brown paper bag to the meeting?

bekayne

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Okay so he is not on the government books but did he bring an empty brown paper bag to the meeting?

He never leaves home without it.

josh

Mulroney?  Talk about being politically out of touch and tone deaf. 

josh

Not to be worried anymore.  Worst PM ever is riding to Canada's rescue.

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/04/06/former-pm-mulroney-back-on-parliament-hil...

 

josh

President Trump blasted Canada on Thursday over a trade dispute affecting dairy farmers, calling it a “disgrace” that’s the result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

“What they’ve done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace,” Trump said Thursday, adding that NAFTA has been “a disaster for our country.” 

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/329733-trump-nafta-changes-will-come-in-two-weeks#.WPjvm17ZIxI.twitter

 

 

NDPP

What Donald Trump's Anti-Canada Rant Means: Walkom

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/04/24/what-donald-trumps...

"Justin Trudeau's pandering hasn't worked. Trump has us in his NAFTA sights. NAFTA talks will be very, very tough..."

And we have a Global Affairs minister with a hidden Ukraine agenda, whose 'guru' is a crooked American bankster (Larry Summers) overseeing it all. Should be great!

kropotkin1951

Too bad that we didn't have a PM that could say go to hell if you want to restrict the border fill your boots.  At that point we would have the Governors of every border state pressuring the White House and they are almost all Red states. The northern US states need Canada every bit as much as Canada needs them. We are in a symbiotic relationship with the US because of geography and it is a two way street.

josh
kropotkin1951

josh wrote:

20% tariff to be placed on softwood lumber.

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/04/24/u-s-planning-20-per-cent-softwood-lumber-...

The easy response is to ban the sale of raw logs into the states and watch the US sawmills scramble to find enough wood to keep running. The reality is that going cap in hand to the boss is never a good bargaining strategy even if they hold most of the cards.

NDPP

JT et al are going to sell us down the river bigtime. Just wait and see...

josh
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Let that cotton candy headed buffoon bring in tariffs. If Canada had a spine,we'd say go ahead...and all the resources you rely on us for will be hit with a 30% tariff. The US relies on our vast resources. We rely on none of theirs. We can play this game as well. Wake up,Trudeau.

iyraste1313

A trade war brings up the question of political party response....willthe status quoers just learn to accept this as divine will, absorbing the losses, while watching the $Can dive, real inflation soar?

This is the ideal time to begin building a Canadian politics of sovereignty and self reliance bgased on equity, social justice and alternatives to globalization.........

not just to stop the export of raw logs...how about all US imports of processed lumber

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Canada retaliates

The Beaverton is like The Onion, but they say "colour" and "grey". 

+1

Quote:
The newly levied fines will make it prohibitively expensive for Canada’s alt-right to employ American-made, racially loaded code words like ‘globalist,’ ‘rule of law,’ ‘states’ rights,’ and ‘white genocide’ to scare up support for their dream of a racially pure white ethno-state. The aim is to incentive racists north of the border to destroy Canada’s social fabric using locally-manufactured expressions like ‘barbaric practices,’ ‘Old-Stock Canadians,’ and ‘Canadian values.’

Mighty Middle

Mulcair reiterates his previous stance that Trudeau needs to tell off Donald Trump to his face, calling Trump a Bully

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

SeekingAPolitic...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/white-house-nafta-withdraw-trum...

Oh boy(sirens in the background) can trump kill nafta and do something the left was not accomplish in canada?  This could be posturing to sign a new deal with canada.  With a stroke of trumps pen is nafta finished?  Does anyone know what warning time is bulit in treaty, how long is in effect after the withdrawl notice is given?

 

kropotkin1951

Any of the three countries can withdraw 6 months after the date of serving written notice.

 

NDPP

Trump Has 'Agreed Not To Terminate NAFTA At This Time', Canada and Mexico Told

http://bit.ly/2oyld9s

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NAFTA Redux

The new Trump administration has made the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico and the United States, a major issue in its relations with its two neighbours. Recently, Trump has threatened to tear it up. With his standard nationalist demagogy, he claims “previous bad trade deals,” have cost the United States many jobs as a result of American manufacturers moving plants off-shore. He is now in the process of telling Canada and Mexico the new administration is prepared to bully its way to a new and more favourable arrangement for itself.

There are no smiley faces, no comforting talk about making the deal “work for everyone”; instead the administration, casting the niceties of diplomacy aside, is using the hard language of war, even resorting to martial terms to let us know how they think the new negotiations should proceed. “Well, we're in a trade war,” stated the U.S. Commerce secretary, the multi-billionaire, Wilbur Ross, when asked directly about that possibility in relation to NAFTA. “We've been in a trade war for decades – that's why we have a deficit. The difference is our troops are now coming to the ramparts.” “If people know you have the big bazooka, you probably don't have to use it,” he stated.

“The Mexicans know, the Canadians know, everybody knows, times are different. We are going to have new trade relations with people. And they all know they're going to have to make concessions. The only question is what's the magnitude, and what's the form of the concessions,” he said....

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

JT et al are going to sell us down the river bigtime. Just wait and see...

We were sold down the river a long time ago. As always, the interests of the .001% will prevail. Do you think Trudeau should follow the advice of Mulcair and call Trump a bully and get into a public tit for tat spat? I'm as horrified as anyone that Mulroney is being consulted but nobody is offering an alternative. Not even the NDP will stand up and say go ahead, rip it up. That means it is going to be renegotiated. Why isn't the NDP suggesting that unions and consumer protection agencies have a seat at the table? All the NDP has on offer is a blustering Mulcair who wants to tell off Trump. I'd like to hear what Guy Caron has to say on it.

 

kropotkin1951

Translation of Pondering's post.

1.  I can forgive my idol Justin anything even being a waterboy for the 0.1%.

2.  The NDP will never win my support because they are not progressive enough.

Absolutely no disconect in logic there, for a true partisan.

quizzical

i find pondering's posts scarey. someone in another thread posted an article on facsist thought and action and how their wording is.

this post and really all of ponderings would fit right into dude' words on Justin and fascist statements.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i find pondering's posts scarey. someone in another thread posted an article on facsist thought and action and how their wording is.

this post and really all of ponderings would fit right into dude' words on Justin and fascist statements.

Because expecting the NDP to take a progressive position on NAFTA and other trade deals is fascist? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. You attack blindly because you follow blindly.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Translation of Pondering's post.

1.  I can forgive my idol Justin anything even being a waterboy for the 0.1%.

2.  The NDP will never win my support because they are not progressive enough.

Absolutely no disconect in logic there, for a true partisan.

You're projecting. You are the one with the romantized view. All I see are waterboys to the .001% including the NDP.  You're the one claiming that the savior is nigh if only we would vote NDP.  Apparently I was supposed to believe the NDP could balance the budget 4 years running while establishing universal childcare. I don't believe in God or magic.

This particular thread is about NAFTA. What would the NDP be doing about it? So far all I've gotten is that they would call Trump a bully. Does the NDP think that would hurt Trump's feelings so he would be nicer in negotiations? Isn't reopening NAFTA an opportunity? Isn't this something the left has wanted?

Your attacks are predicated on the assumption that the NDP is capable of running the country and would do so in a more progressive fashion than the Liberals do. Both would have to be true for Canada to be better off under a federal NDP administration than they are under a federal Liberal administration.

100% of your and the NDP's accusations against Trudeau and the Liberals could be true. Still doesn't make the NDP a better bet. So far the NDP wants me to believe in magic and wants to berate Trump for being a bully. How is that better or even more progressive? It certainly wouldn't receive better terms for Canada under NAFTA. Given that Trump is saying this is all about jobs it is the perfect time to suggest that unions be involved in negotiations. Maybe there is some other angle that could be taken to benefit citizens on both sides of the border. If so I am pretty sure I won't be hearing it from the NDP. All I hear from the NDP is "we are better" "Trudeau is nasty" "elections aren't fair to us" "PR is the #1 issue" nothing more than foot stomping.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Did you hear me yet?

The only think worse than having Justin Trudeau as PM would be having Harper or Mulcair as PM. You are the one who hero worships Mulcair and the NDP.

Mighty Middle

Again who agrees with Mulcair, who says ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Trudeau needs to tell off Trump once and for all.

Who is on Team Mulcair with this stance?

Rev Pesky

From Mighty Middle:

Again who agrees with Mulcair, who says ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Trudeau needs to tell off Trump once and for all.

I'm replying based on the assumption you're not joking. If the above comment was supposed to be a joke, my apologies.

​Having said that, I'm not sure what anyone expects 'telling off Trump' will do. The USA has a perfect right to end their participation in NAFTA based on the pre-established rules. In that most of the left opposed NAFTA when it was put into operation, I, like Pondering, am not sure what the complaint is now. If you're opposed to NAFTA, and Trump ends the US participation in it, that would appear to satisfy your opposition to it.

If you're not really oppposed to NAFTA, but would like someone to call Trump an asshole, again, I'm not sure what you would be hoping to achieve. It seems obvious to me that flinging names at Trump would  be more likely to push him towards this particular part of his agenda than dissuade him from it.

If the US decides to leave NAFTA, there is nothing that Canada, or any Canadian government, can do about it. If the USA decides to 're-negotiate' NAFTA, all the Canadian government can do is press as hard as possible on those issues which will have the greatest impact on the Canadian economy.

What's a bit amusing about this is that while US/Canada do a great deal of cross border trade, to the tune of roughly USD $550 billion in 2016, the imbalance between Canada and the US is pretty small. Again, for 2016, about USD $11 billion in Canada's favour.

Meanwhile, total trade between the US and China is roughly the same, but the trade imbalance is about USD $347 billion in favour of China.

So Trump running around screaming about trade with Canada, and how we're taking advantage of them, obviously hasn't learned how to use a calculator.

I expect that saner heads will prevail, if for no other reason than that the automobile industry, a very large part of durable good manufacturing in North America is completely integrated. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and possibly many millions of jobs to try and separate that industry by country. I suspect the powers that be in automobile manufacture will make their position known to the Trump administration.

As far as what the NDP would do, anyone who has lived with an NDP government knows well how slippery they are. People often say how the Liberals run from the left and govern from the right. The NDP is not a lot different.

For details of this, see Wikipedia:  BC NDP

Note the 1990's, with first Mike Harcourt, then Glen Clark as NDP premiers. The memory of Glen Clark is still fresh in people's minds, even today, and has cost the NDP for the last twenty years.

NDPP

Pondering wrote:

 

 All I see are waterboys to the .001% including the NDP.  

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

[/quote] NDPP:

I agree with all of the above self-evident statements.  

kropotkin1951

Rev Pesky wrote:

Note the 1990's, with first Mike Harcourt, then Glen Clark as NDP premiers. The memory of Glen Clark is still fresh in people's minds, even today, and has cost the NDP for the last twenty years.

More fake news from a liberal troll. Here is a good unbiased view of the relative governments fiscal performance. Of course the right wing media and useful idiots like Revb Pesky keep repeating the same lies over and over until indeed many people believe the alternate truth. 

Conclusion

Contrary to the image they wish to portray, the BC Liberals have not been good fiscal managers of the province’s resources. Their administration is typified by reckless spending, which will ultimately lead to higher taxes, higher hydro rates and higher ferry fares. The BC Liberals will give us less jobs, not more.

The province was in much better hands when the NDP were in power under Mike Harcourt.

https://theecoreport.com/are-the-bc-liberals-better-fiscal-managers-than...

 

Mighty Middle

 kropotkin1951 do you agree with Mulcair that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Trudeau to start a fight with Trump, starting by telling his off to his face.

kropotkin1951

I would like to see us give six months notice to the US and Mexico. It reverts us to the GATT rules and the cross border trade is not dependent on any one kind of trade deal. However I do not trust the Liberals to renegotiate it because the corporate lawyers they send to the table will not have the Canadian public's best interests in mind. A smart strategy would be to give the notice and then open up bilateral talks with a provincial government council and the Northern border state governors. They want open borders with Canada and they are almost all Red states.  Play

quizzical

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i find pondering's posts scarey. someone in another thread posted an article on facsist thought and action and how their wording is.

this post and really all of ponderings would fit right into dude' words on Justin and fascist statements.

Because expecting the NDP to take a progressive position on NAFTA and other trade deals is fascist? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. You attack blindly because you follow blindly.

bs pondering you know i'm not a follower of any sort.

it's your wording i'm speaking about.

because you do this all the time:

"

Then came the part that really grabbed my attention:

"It's the fascists who said everyday life doesn't matter; details don't matter; facts don't matter; all that matters is the message, the leader, the myth, the totality."

What surprised me, listening to Snyder's description of the earmarks of fascism, was that Donald Trump didn't come to mind.

Popping up instead was the image of our own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, complete with sleeves rolled up on his crisp, white dress shirt."

when i read the article you popped to mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/is-justin-trudeau-fascist_b_1...

 

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I would like to see us give six months notice to the US and Mexico. It reverts us to the GATT rules and the cross border trade is not dependent on any one kind of trade deal. However I do not trust the Liberals to renegotiate it because the corporate lawyers they send to the table will not have the Canadian public's best interests in mind. A smart strategy would be to give the notice and then open up bilateral talks with a provincial government council and the Northern border state governors. They want open borders with Canada and they are almost all Red states.  Play

So you support Trump and his stance to rip-up NAFTA?

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

 All I see are waterboys to the .001% including the NDP.  

 

Justin Trudeau is a crappy Prime Minister.

NDPP:

I agree with all of the above self-evident statements.  

[/quote]

The worst part is, he is still the best on offer. Guy Caron gives me some hope but I won't really know if and until he wins the leadership if he is strong enough to go up against Trudeau and just how serious he is about the need to restructure the economy.

Until then Trudeau is who we have. Bashing him will do nothing to advance progressive causes. It just makes grievances sound personal rather than political.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i find pondering's posts scarey. someone in another thread posted an article on facsist thought and action and how their wording is.

this post and really all of ponderings would fit right into dude' words on Justin and fascist statements.

Because expecting the NDP to take a progressive position on NAFTA and other trade deals is fascist? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. You attack blindly because you follow blindly.

bs pondering you know i'm not a follower of any sort.

it's your wording i'm speaking about.

because you do this all the time:

"

Then came the part that really grabbed my attention:

"It's the fascists who said everyday life doesn't matter; details don't matter; facts don't matter; all that matters is the message, the leader, the myth, the totality."

What surprised me, listening to Snyder's description of the earmarks of fascism, was that Donald Trump didn't come to mind.

Popping up instead was the image of our own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, complete with sleeves rolled up on his crisp, white dress shirt."

when i read the article you popped to mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/is-justin-trudeau-fascist_b_1...

You think I am fascist or support fascism because I use quotes?  Or is it because I recognize reality? The people deciding elections only pay attention in the last couple of weeks and only hear very short messages. If you can figure out a way to change that I am all for it.

This is what fascism is:

Fascism | Definition of Fascism by Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Nothing anywhere close to that is happening in Canada. Harper tried to suppress the vote but Trudeau can't be accused of that.

What you don't get is that I wish with all of my heart that things were different and Canadians understood that we are being exploited by the .001% and revolted. I just understand that it will take a lot more than wishing for that to happen. It's going to take communicating with people about what they care about not what you care about. You can talk about what you care about too. Just not first and not to the exclusion of what the people you want to sway care about.

In 2019 chances are posters here will be claiming again that the people are going to see that it's Liberals Tories same ol story and it's not fair that the NDP never get a turn and see we need PR and Canadians will again respond with ho hum you got a better economic plan than the Liberals? No? Oh well, Liberals it is, now back to everyday life.

I admit I haven't paid close attention to the BC election but it seems the BC NDP is doing something right.

Mulcair's blustering about "fighting back" by calling Trump a bully is either a childish approach to dealing with Trump or just a transparent excuse to attack Trudeau.  The NDP does have to play politics, it's just that they are doing it poorly. This is the moment to start criticizing NAFTA and raising some of our grievances. 

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin1951:

More fake news from a liberal troll.

I guess I'd have to say I'm a bit of an odd Liberal troll. I worked in the NDP campaign when Mike Harcourt was running to be premier, which explains how I met him. I even was used as entertainment at one of his events (charity, of course). So if think I'm a Liberal, you can think again.

​I can't say as I worked on Glen Clark's campaign, although I voted for the local NDP candidate. But the reference I gave for those two was not because of their financial management. It is true that the BC Liberals talk a lot about the Clark NDP government as being poor financial managers, which is untrue. But if you had read the article I linked to, you would have seen this (courtesy Wikipedia):

Whereas Harcourt's first two years in government were characterized by a notably social democratic policy agenda, the government took a dramatic turn to the right in 1993 with Harcourt's famous province-wide televised address in which he lashed out against "welfare cheats, deadbeats and varmints". This speech inaugurated a set of welfare reforms enacted between 1993 and 1995 similar to those adopted by new Progressive Conservative provincial governments elected in Alberta and Ontario in the same time period.

Pardon me for saying, but for an NDP premier to blame the provinces financial situation on 'welfare cheats' is hardly progressive. But he wasn't finished yet. Further from Wikipedia:

Three months before BC Benefits was introduced by the Harcourt government, a protracted conflict began with the elements of the province's environmentalist movement. Harcourt's Peace in the Woods pact which brought together traditionally warring environmental groups and forest workers' unions began to collapse when Harcourt's cabinet exempted an environmentally-sensitive area of Vancouver Island, Clayoquot Sound, from its province-wide mediation process for land-use conflicts, CORE (the Commission on Resources and the Environment). This touched off logging road blockades in which over 800 people were arrested and alienated of some key environmental leaders such as David Suzuki and Colleen McCrory who shifted their support to the Green Party in the 1996 provincial election.

Then there was Gustafsen Lake, but you can look that one up yourself. Glen Clark wasn't much better. His progressiveness was largely rhetorical, and his attempt to get into the ferry building business was a complete failure. In then end, it was NDP insiders who forced him out. From there he became one of Jim Pattison's chief lieutenants, rather an interesing parachute for a supposed leftie. In fact there was almost nothing done in his years that couldn't, or wouldn't, have been done by either a Liberal or Conservative government.

So it isn't his financial record I object to. It was his complete lack of progressive principles, of principles generally. He let Adrian Dix, his Chief of Staff, falsify a memo (backdating it) to avoid conflict of interest charges, an event that followed Dix around up until he ran as leader of the NDP, failed miserably, and resigned his position.

Not the sort of behaviour one expects from committed lefties, or anyone with integrity.

 

Mighty Middle

Trump is going to tell Canada "Take it or leave it" meaning he wants supply management axed, he wants higher tariffs on softwood lumber, he wants American jobs protected...if he doesn't get that he will ripup NAFTA.

What would the NDP do if Mulcair was PM?

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:

i find pondering's posts scarey. someone in another thread posted an article on facsist thought and action and how their wording is.

this post and really all of ponderings would fit right into dude' words on Justin and fascist statements.

Because expecting the NDP to take a progressive position on NAFTA and other trade deals is fascist? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. You attack blindly because you follow blindly.

bs pondering you know i'm not a follower of any sort.

it's your wording i'm speaking about.

because you do this all the time:

"Then came the part that really grabbed my attention:

"It's the fascists who said everyday life doesn't matter; details don't matter; facts don't matter; all that matters is the message, the leader, the myth, the totality."

What surprised me, listening to Snyder's description of the earmarks of fascism, was that Donald Trump didn't come to mind.

Popping up instead was the image of our own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, complete with sleeves rolled up on his crisp, white dress shirt."

when i read the article you popped to mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/is-justin-trudeau-fascist_b_1...

You think I am fascist or support fascism because I use quotes?  Or is it because I recognize reality?

"recognize reality"  ha!

what i'm saying is your usual rhetoric matches what the Huff Po guy was noting. as does  your "recognize reality" speal.

it's always creeped me out a bit. now i undertand why.

kropotkin1951

Mighty Middle wrote:

So you support Trump and his stance to rip-up NAFTA?

I don't fucking support Trump you idiot. I actively fought against NAFTA in the day and have advocated ripping the damn corporate rights agreement up since the day it was signed. Trump is irrelvant to the issue of whether or not NAFTA is good for the Canadian economy and Canada's ability to create a sustainable economy that is not controlled from Wall Street.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:

i find pondering's posts scarey. someone in another thread posted an article on facsist thought and action and how their wording is.

this post and really all of ponderings would fit right into dude' words on Justin and fascist statements.

Because expecting the NDP to take a progressive position on NAFTA and other trade deals is fascist? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. You attack blindly because you follow blindly.

bs pondering you know i'm not a follower of any sort.

it's your wording i'm speaking about.

because you do this all the time:

"Then came the part that really grabbed my attention:

"It's the fascists who said everyday life doesn't matter; details don't matter; facts don't matter; all that matters is the message, the leader, the myth, the totality."

What surprised me, listening to Snyder's description of the earmarks of fascism, was that Donald Trump didn't come to mind.

Popping up instead was the image of our own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, complete with sleeves rolled up on his crisp, white dress shirt."

when i read the article you popped to mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/is-justin-trudeau-fascist_b_1...

You think I am fascist or support fascism because I use quotes?  Or is it because I recognize reality?

"recognize reality"  ha!

what i'm saying is your usual rhetoric matches what the Huff Po guy was noting. as does  your "recognize reality" speal.

it's always creeped me out a bit. now i undertand why.

You don't substantiate your argument at all. You don't understand what fascism means. You just fling silly accusations.

You would rather doom people to poverty than admit the techniques and approaches of progressives need to change.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2017/04/what-antidote-trumpism

The advent of the FTA and the other elements of the so-called Washington Consensus (deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to social spending, privatization) was the death knell for this kind of grassroots politicking. Neoliberalism -- adopted by all the parties to a greater or lesser extent -- was intent on giving democracy (and its incessant demands for more) a cold shower and dramatically downsizing the social state. The federal and provincial governments quietly tore up the implied "contract" between social movements and the state. They just didn't tell the social movements.

Simone Weil wrote that "[t]o be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul." The lesson here for the NDP leadership candidates genuinely open to "social movements" is the need to shift their attention inwards: a renewed NDP must itself become a movement rooted in community (like its predecessor, the CCF), going beyond a list of policies and pledging to help build a society which offers people meaning in their lives.

The ascendancy of neoliberalism carries many lessons. It will not be defeated by earnesty.

Climate change activists want to shut down the oil sands because of their impact on climate change. Local opposition is rooted in the protection of the immediate geographic area that the pipelines travel through. Climate change activists don't insist that local opposition be motivated by climate change. They don't care what the motive is as long as the pipelines are stopped. Same with the courts. They will use the legal arguments most likely to work. There isn't anything fascist about that. It's just being pragmatic.

It would be nice if justice is the driving cause of ending homelessness but if the argument that works is that it is cheaper for the state because it offloads emergency services I'm good with it. I don't care why people support ending homelessness I just want it to happen.

Bernie Sanders had a problem with trade deals too, I think even NAFTA. That it is Trump who wants to renegotiate NAFTA doesn't change the fact that it is an opportunity to suggest that if it is all about protecting jobs then workers should be involved in the negotiations and if it's about saving money for consumers than consumers should be involved.

And yeah, you are a follower quizzical because who says something is more important to you than what they say. You don't even see that you are driven by economic self-interest when you support pipelines and yet you think there is something fascist about appealing to people through their own self-interest.

You wanted to believe that Mulcair's rise to first place during the election period was a result of a long slow realization and attention to policy so unlike Trudeau Mulcair would maintain his lead. Well look how that turned out. Sean predicted that when tax season came around people would realize Trudeau had deceived them. Maybe some did but not a lot. Many predicted he would be revealed as an airhead.

Observing wins and losses in Canada and the world on the left and the right is instructive. We can learn from the environmental movement and Occupy and even from the US military. How about a deck of cards identifying the oligarchs of Canada or of the world with fun facts about them. How about a not so trivial pursuit game of interesting facts. For example, one question could be "How much lower or higher are corporate taxes today than they were in the year 2000?" The muliple choice answers could include -2%, -5%, -13%, +2%. If you aren't trying to make money off it the "cards" and game board could be free printables on an open Yahoo group or whatever is used these days. Interested people could submit questions and answers and could be asked to distribute a few cards in cafeterias or libraries with the web address of the game. But according to you that would be fascist. Only long earnest arguments permitted.

Pondering

I just read the article. It's a perfect example of your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word fascist (and the author's dishonesty as I can't believe he doesn't understand the word). It is ironic that you would link to such an article when you are in favor of expanding the oil sands and pipelines to get the oil to market. The NDP is also in favor of the same. By your logic that means you and the NDP are fascist too, or you are an unknowing follower of fascists.

If all a politician had to do to be fascist is lie and massage the truth all politicians would be fascists. The word loses all meaning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/is-justin-trudeau-fascist_b_1...

Calling Trudeau a fascist is exactly what turns people away from politics because it is empty grandstanding. There is no information in that statement to change anyone's opinion. The article preaches to the converted to make a buck. Before he was elected Trudeau stated that it is the job of the PM to get resources to market and it was clear he was talking about oil. He stated all along that the oil industry would fund the transition to greener technology. Meanwhile the NDP pretends EE oil wouldn't be for export when export is the reason they want the pipeline built. Damn. Everywhere I look nothing but fascists.

 

Mighty Middle

You said it yourself

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I actively fought against NAFTA in the day

Which means you support Trump stance in ripping up NAFTA

quizzical

making stuff up pondering? i'll answer for you.

yup.

i've never supported expansion of the tar sands for export. not once.

i've never supported pipelines for export. not once.

maybe it's you who doesn't understand you, Trudeau and his crew are using the language of fascists?

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

making stuff up pondering? i'll answer for you.

yup.

i've never supported expansion of the tar sands for export. not once.

i've never supported pipelines for export. not once.

maybe it's you who doesn't understand you, Trudeau and his crew are using the language of fascists?

That's a cop out. EE will not be built unless it reachs tidewater. It isn't even close to financially viable without exporting.  The whole point of EE is to is to break the landlock on Alberta oil. Sure they will drop some oil off in Quebec and New Brunswick but the pipeline will carry much more than can be absorbed by Eastern Canada. If they get Keystone and Trans Mountain they will ditch EE because it won't be needed anymore.

No export no EE so if you support EE you are supporting export.

https://canadians.org/blog/myth-busting-energy-east-canadian-oil-canadians

Myth-busting step 1: Understanding refinery capacity

There are 3 refineries along the Energy East pipeline path:

  • Suncor in Montreal with the capacity to refine 137,000 barrels per day (BPD)
  • Valero in Quebec City which can refine 235,000 BPD
  • Irving in Saint John which can refine 300,000 BPD

If Energy East replaced every drop of oil in these refineries, with a total capacity of 672,000 BPD, a significant 428,000 BPD would still be for export. Energy East would be the largest tar sands pipeline in North America.

But here’s the thing, Energy East won’t replace every drop, far from.

Back in 2014 we helped publish a report finding three projected crude oil supplies along Energy East's path towards 2020:

  • Enbridge Line 9 reversal 250,000 BPD  
  • Atlantic Canada offshore 100,000 BPD
  • US light crude 200,000 BPD

Enbridge Line 9 reversal has since been approved and is now is unfortunately flowing oil to Quebec refineries despite fierce community resistance to the old pipe which endanger critical waterways, amongst other critical concerns.

Valero has gone so far as to publicly state it has ‘no firm interest’ in Energy East because it already has commitments for other sources – notably Line 9. Same goes for Suncor. 

When it comes to US imports, the fact is it is cheap light crude and a likely ongoing choice given refineries desire for the best bang for their buck.

This leads to the conclusion that 978,000 barrels of the 1.1 million BPD is destined for export.

AND

If this was REALLY about Canadian oil for Canadians...

Like Gordon Laxer argues in his new book, if this was really about a patriotic goal of achieving greater energy security by supplying Canadian oil to Canadians, why aren't we talking about diverting current exports from Newfoundland to the U.S. to meet Atlantic needs?

Due to self-interest, the economy of your area, you are choosing to believe oil company propaganda.

You could accuse me of falling for environmentalist propaganda but the facts coupled with logic say otherwise. They are still appealing to self-interest. In this case the cost benefit analysis for regions along the route. That isn't propaganda.

Pages