Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You'll have to do some explaining, if the initial retaliatory tariffs have minimum impact on Canada that would mean the impact is minimal to the US. So message does that send exactly and why even bother with such retaliatory tariffs? If Canada is pissed about the US imposing 25% tariffs it is basically rolling over if our government imposes tariffs with minimum impact.

I think the idea here is that you target things we can easily replace here but hit a certain industry in a red state hard. For instance bourbon, we can just drink Rye for a while. Orange juice, I guess we drink mango or apple, ect. I all just helps put pressure on Trump from within.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

I think the idea here is that you target things we can easily replace here but hit a certain industry in a red state hard. For instance bourbon, we can just drink Rye for a while. Orange juice, I guess we drink mango or apple, ect. I all just helps put pressure on Trump from within.

That’s the thinking exactly. What pinches them in politically sensitive areas if we don’t buy it, but it’s either a luxury here or there are alternatives.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You'll have to do some explaining, if the initial retaliatory tariffs have minimum impact on Canada that would mean the impact is minimal to the US. So message does that send exactly and why even bother with such retaliatory tariffs? If Canada is pissed about the US imposing 25% tariffs it is basically rolling over if our government imposes tariffs with minimum impact.

Targeted tariffs are targeted for that exact purpose. These are either items that strike specific products from specific strategic regions, or they are targeted because we already have a viable alternative in place, thus less disruption and higher prices in our own market, and relatively larger impact on the US.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can start with just one and we can go from there. But I really don’t feel like reading another sentence about how you’re not engaging without you picking up on the irony of it. I’m literally just here to hear your thoughts on the subject, couldn’t care less about your thoughts on why you shouldn’t have to give your thoughts on it.

Speaking of irony, you are still missing responding to post 16818.

Patiently waiting….

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Our system of government is exposed to an outsized risk if an incompetent leader is elected. No checks and balances or regional representation.

Yup. Alberta is ####ed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Andy83

First, your most powerful chip only has power if your opponent truly believes it is a chip you might or even can play. Now, of course its pure speculation either way, no one outside Trump and his closest advisors (maybe even just him, advisors probably rarely know what he's going to do either) know the answer to this. I tend to lean on the side that he doesn't believe it's even a possibility we put this chip in the middle. I doubt he picks this fight if he believes it is a possibility (again, clearly speculation). Call him what you will, he knows with this particular item, any pain felt by them will be felt by us, and very likely much more damaging to us. Lack of infrastructure on both sides of an alternate supply line, are likely (and on our side definitely) not in place. While the economic impact in terms of actual dollars would be probably 2x-3x worse for the US, its MUCH easier/faster for them to replace our supply, than it is for us to replace their market. I use the terms easier and faster very loosely as nothing about it is easy or fast in either case. Even if you don't go down the worst case scenario, we apply an export tax, and the US cuts its Canadian O&G imports, to any degree, the impact seen here would be immense. Jobs lost, a weak economy gets even weaker, there is a good case for the dollar to slip even further (amazing thats even possible), on and on. Its a terrible idea. But I understand you are talking more about the idea of using it, not actually doing it. I think threatening something you cant follow through on, even if your opponent has no read on if you can/will, is extremely foolish.
-snip-

I just want to say I think this is far more thought than Trump has ever put into the "concept of a plan" for tariffs. We aren't negotiating with rationality or positions derived from facts.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I just want to say I think this is far more thought than Trump has ever put into the "concept of a plan" for tariffs. We aren't negotiating with rationality or positions derived from facts.

You may very well be correct. But he clearly wants something, and i definitely don't think it's a trade war. As previously stated, I believe what he's really after is a renewed commitment to our own national security, as it greatly impacts US national security. He's just chosen a ####ty way to go about it. I also don't think "complying" should be viewed as a negative thing or "bending the knee" either.

[Fuzz]

President-elect Donald Trump is planning to issue a broad memorandum Monday that directs federal agencies to study trade policies and evaluate U.S. trade relationships with China and America’s continental neighbors—but stops short of imposing new tariffs on his first day in office, as many trading partners feared.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/...c8378d?mod=mhp


I wouldn't want to be in a position where it actually matters about predicting what Trump will do next, and what impact that will have on economies. But this is a good news day for Canada. Time:bought.

[Firebot]

Day 1: Safe!

[BoLevi]

I'm a bit surprised by this. I dont think anyone being reasonable predicted energy tariffs. But I thought there would be a token one started.

[Fuzz]

https://logwork.com/countdown-h5o4


Only 1460ish days to go...

[Fuzz]

His tariff talk could have all been a massive distraction. It really ramped up after the H-1B fiasco, and served as great cover as that story disappeared. It was a bad story, as it showed all his voters who he actually stands with, and he's now caught between Musk and Bannon. Who knows what else was going on these past few weeks? But the tariff talk certainly distracted everyone.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/...c8378d?mod=mhp


I wouldn't want to be in a position where it actually matters about predicting what Trump will do next, and what impact that will have on economies. But this is a good news day for Canada. Time:bought.

What worries me more about this 2nd term is Musk's involvement. It's one thing to have a madman running software and car companies but him having political influence is something that I find very worrisome.

[Firebot]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...033550723.html

Meanwhile

(Bloomberg) — President-elect Donald Trump is poised to invoke emergency powers as part of his plan to unleash domestic energy production while seeking to reverse President Joe Biden’s actions to combat climate change, according to people familiar with the matter.

Hopefully our government (present and future) will heed the warning signs and do what is best for Canada long term in terms of building infrastructure that does not depend on American refineries and exporting to the US, and shift our own energy production demands to dependable renewables like nuclear. The banks already have broken rank on pretending to care about climate change now that it is no longer consider politically popular.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...climate-goals/

The Net-Zero Banking Alliance was set up by Carney in 2021 as UN envoy. It also appears that Carney (Freeland has already stated she will dump it) may decide to scrap the Trudeau carbon tax for a different plan but he gave a pretty muddy answer.

It seems that climate change is dead as a political driver for the foreseeable future.

[Andy83]

https://www.jccf.ca/federal-court-gr...ue-parliament/

Will be pretty interesting what, if anything comes of this.

It's noteworthy, the decision, granting the request for an expedited hearing, references the UK decision that sent Boris Johnson back to work in 2019. So at least the UK decision is being carefully considered.

Definitely promising for those who want an election yesterday.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm a bit surprised by this. I dont think anyone being reasonable predicted energy tariffs. But I thought there would be a token one started.

I thought he’d go back to the same batch he did last time. The consequences of them are known. For him to back down completely suggests there are some competent people that have is ear for now.

The Oligarchs are in control over the populists. For better or worse.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/...c8378d?mod=mhp


I wouldn't want to be in a position where it actually matters about predicting what Trump will do next, and what impact that will have on economies. But this is a good news day for Canada. Time:bought.

Like him or hate him, Kevin O'leary has said, from the start, he doesn't believe additional tariffs are going to be implimented. Takes a Wacko to know a Wacko.

[BoLevi]

And who had the most reasonable response to Trump's bluster?

Danielle Smith.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What worries me more about this 2nd term is Musk's involvement. It's one thing to have a madman running software and car companies but him having political influence is something that I find very worrisome.

I don't see Musk lasting more than 6 months. That might be tumultuous, but there is no way those two egos are going to get along. And with Bannon stirring the H1-B pot with visceral determination, I suspect it all blows up soon. Now, what does Musk do after he's been severed like an unwanted gangrene appendix? That'll be interesting. I suspect he may even hard pivot to authoritarians elsewhere.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And who had the most reasonable response to Trump's bluster?

Danielle Smith.

How exactly have you come to that conclusion?