[lenaitch]

Seeing as there is an amendment being proposed to let him serve another term after this, not entirely sure his acolytes don't believe it as well.

Source for that? I know it is a wet dream of his sycophants, no doubt when they were miffed that Putin thought of it first.

Given the very high bar to propose and ratify an amendment to their Constitution, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

 

[Richard White]

Given the very high bar to propose and ratify an amendment to their Constitution, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

Not only that but the reason there are term limits is because after FDR served 4 terms it was agreed that safeguards were needed.

The 22nd amendment may be a thorn in the side of Trump supporters but given his rhetoric and policies I can't see there being much desire to repeal it.

 

[picard102]

Source for that?

Rep. Ogles Proposes Amending the 22nd Amendment to Allow Trump to Serve a Third Term

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow a President to be elected for up to but no more than three terms. The language of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

ogles.house.gov

 

[PL1]

Source for that? I know it is a wet dream of his sycophants, no doubt when they were miffed that Putin thought of it first.

Given the very high bar to propose and ratify an amendment to their Constitution, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

I've seen it on the socials, and here's a link to news with a link to the bill (I think!)... My comment is that I believe it would require a constitutional amendment to achieve this.

 

[Northern Light]

I've seen it on the socials, and here's a link to news with a link to the bill (I think!)... My comment is that I believe it would require a constitutional amendment to achieve this.

This is correct. The bar is quite high.......3/4 of the States have to approve, in addition to 2/3 votes in each house of Congress and the President.

 

[Northern Light]

So I reported on the deportation issue w/Colombia earlier today.............an issue on which Trump is now claiming some type of victory......after Columbia accounted retaliatory tariffs etc.

Thing is.............. on further review...........

Colombia accepted 124 U.S. flights of deportees in 2024..........

Why the sudden refusal...?

What to Know About the U.S.-Colombia Clash Over Deportations

President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro defended their views on social media and imposed tariffs on each other’s goods.

time.com

I may know the answer to this question..............but I will leave to others to discuss.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd like to know what the true trade deficit is, especially when we include the profits generated by US-owned subsidiaries operating within Canada. The likes of Coca-Cola Canada, Kraft Heinz Canada, Caterpillar Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada and ExxonMobil Canada make things here by Canadians for Canadians, but these are not publicly traded companies in Canada, and all profits are repatriated to their US shareholders. And then there's our financial and insurance services being US-owned, including AIG Canada, and State Farm Canada. Every penny paid in premiums not paid out in claims goes to their US shareholders. When you add all of the US-owned and destined profits being generated in Canada in addition to trade in physical goods and materials, I think that $250B trade deficit is more likely a wash. Take away hydrocarbon exports and Canada is definitely on the losing end.

 

[PL1]

I'd like to know what the true trade deficit is, especially when we include the profits generated by US-owned subsidiaries operating within Canada. The likes of Coca-Cola Canada, Kraft Heinz Canada, Caterpillar Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada and ExxonMobil Canada make things here by Canadians for Canadians, but these are not publicly traded companies in Canada, and all profits are repatriated to their US shareholders. And then there's our financial and insurance services being US-owned, including Manulife Financial, AIG Canada, and State Farm Canada. Every penny paid in premiums not paid out in claims goes to their US shareholders. When you add all of the US-owned and destined profits being generated in Canada in addition to trade in physical goods and materials, I think that $250B trade deficit is more likely a wash. Take away hydrocarbon exports and Canada is definitely on the losing end.

Manulife is Canadian. Global HQ is here. They own John Hancock in the US

 

[evandyk]

"Trade deficit" is a silly term anyways. Even if they bought $250B worth of Canadian exports and we bought $0 worth of American exports, they're getting $250B worth of Canadian goods and services, and we're getting $0 worth of American goods and services.

I had a $200 trade deficit with No Frills on the weekend, if you ignore the fact that my fridge is full of groceries.

 

[afransen]

"Trade deficit" is a silly term anyways. Even if they bought $250B worth of Canadian exports and we bought $0 worth of American exports, they're getting $250B worth of Canadian goods and services, and we're getting $0 worth of American goods and services.

I had a $200 trade deficit with No Frills on the weekend, if you ignore the fact that my fridge is full of groceries.

There is a reason why mercantilism fell out of favour as a paradigm in global affairs. Unfortunately, we are increasingly ruled by idiots and know-nothings, partly as a backlash to some unfair market manipulation by China designed to stamp out global competitors.

 

[afransen]

This is a very thought provoking interview on David Herle's podcast with Trevor Tombe.

My summary/takeaways:

• It is likely not in Canada's interest to retaliate in a meaningful way with countervailing tariffs or export taxes (such as and particularly on oil and gas).
• Canada should instead focus on reducing reliance on US exports by investing in infrastructure to bring our exports to other markets. Not just pipelines, but ports, rail, etc.
• Focus on improving Canadian competitiveness. Some ideas floated were removing interprovincial trade barriers (an old saw), and allowing accelerated depreciation of investments. Perhaps all the way to allowing investments to be expensed directly.
• Optics/politics: continue to play along with Trump's jawboning on the border, military spending to take those issues off the table, even if they are not the true reason behind US tariffs. Play up the huge imbalance of investment flows from Canada to the US to give Trump a 'win'. $100B in direct investment by Canadian firms in the US each year, plus $300B in financial investment flows. Other countries like Saudi are getting credit for this, we should too.

 

[evandyk]

My summary/takeaways:

• It is likely not in Canada's interest to retaliate in a meaningful way with countervailing tariffs or export taxes (such as and particularly on oil and gas).
• Canada should instead focus on reducing reliance on US exports by investing in infrastructure to bring our exports to other markets. Not just pipelines, but ports, rail, etc.

I think you can have meaningful tariffs that are not broad-based. Targeting high-profile products from states with GOP politicians can bring pressure on Washington in a way that Canadian politicians can't. Kentucky bourbon, Harley-Davidsons, Teslas, etc.

Sure, you can talk about ports and railways, but those are not a meaningful solution. Trump will not be in power by the time you make any real progress on those.

 

[Mihairokov]

Trump will not be in power by the time you make any real progress on those.

When will the next openly democratic election be? I don't believe it's a given.

 

[evandyk]

I don't like Trump and think he's a serious threat to a bunch of things, but in 2026 the Democrats will retake the House and Senate, and in 2028 (well, January 2029) a Democrat will become president.

 

[Northern Light]

This is a very thought provoking interview on David Herle's podcast with Trevor Tombe.

My summary/takeaways:

• It is likely not in Canada's interest to retaliate in a meaningful way with countervailing tariffs or export taxes (such as and particularly on oil and gas).

Perhaps. In general though, I would support retaliatory measures, but not tariffs.

I favour export control, no electricity, no oil, no gas, no aluminum, no raw ores or minerals at all.

To be clear, I would expect such measures to self-resolve in 24 hours or so...... It would be rather cold in parts of the northern U.S. quite quickly.

And despite what Trump says, the U.S. has no ability to stand up alternative Aluminum sourcing in the near-term either.

***

Let's remember here, this is theatre, as we just saw with Columbia. The object isn't to provoke a war or to think about long term impacts. (in general we should) but Team Trump isn't serious about most of this stuff, its all optics.

So as long as we're going to have bully-boy optics, lets do that, then both sides can do a face-saving deal.

• Canada should instead focus on reducing reliance on US exports by investing in infrastructure to bring our exports to other markets. Not just pipelines, but ports, rail, etc.

Sure, agree.

• Focus on improving Canadian competitiveness. Some ideas floated were removing interprovincial trade barriers (an old saw),

Fully support, though it would only make a substantive difference in exports sectors in a very few small ways, notably it have a positive effect on trucking.

• and allowing accelerated depreciation of investments.

We already have accelerated capital cost depreciation. Its quite aggressive, there is also no indication that it resulted in any gain in productivity, I'm inclined to repeal it.

• Optics/politics: continue to play along with Trump's jawboning on the border, military spending to take those issues off the table, even if they are not the true reason behind US tariffs. Play up the huge imbalance of investment flows from Canada to the US to give Trump a 'win'. $100B in direct investment by Canadian firms in the US each year, plus $300B in financial investment flows. Other countries like Saudi are getting credit for this, we should too

Sure, why not?