If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Several opinion pieces I read this morning describing Trump's announcements that he wants statehood for Canada and will use force to take Greenland as part of his bizarre negotiating strategy. Such a strategy is well outside established norms of the typical negotiating approaches of heads of states. Leverage? Liney probably correctly describes Trump's motives but, according to experts on the history of high level negotiations Trump may not realize that there can be serious unintended consequences (risks) when heads of state step outside of negotiating norms. The current world view of the sanctity of international boarders is skewered by Trump's approach. Threatening an imperialistic approach to his presidency might encourage China and Russia to more aggressively pursue their imperil objectives in Ukraine and Taiwan. Creating chaos is part of who Trump is. I'm not real comfortable with that.
Good Lord, Liney has it right. You have to understand what Trump means, not what he says. We have no business subsidizing Canada when it is only spending 1.39% of GDP on defense and running a $200 billion trade surplus with the US. We should not acquiesce to Panama charging our ships the going rate to use the Canal. And we DID militarily take Greenland during WWII (and gave it back to Denmark)
I do wonder what Trump will do if the hostages are not returned by January 20. I kinda think he means what he says there.
That would be Bill Clinton. He's likely safe from being fired, seeing he's retired now ...
Uh update your history book, chief. NAFTA is defunct. USMCA took its place. And whose administration negotiated the USMCA in 2018? Why, that would the bronzer-drenched clod who now says our deal with Canada stinks and is very unfair.
Uh update your history book, chief. NAFTA is defunct. USMCA took its place. And whose administration negotiated the USMCA in 2018? Why, that would the bronzer-drenched clod who now says our deal with Canada stinks and is very unfair.
Sorry, you're not going to talk me out of wanting to give the orange guy another chance at Prez, after what the country has been through with 4 years of The Chairman and The Party. Drill baby drill!
And I think one reason why Trump may be upset with the USMCA and its other signees, is that they are not keeping their part of the bargain. That'd be my guess.
But then again, maybe he's just being mean.
"The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, .. I'd worn them for weeks, and they needed the air"
Sorry, you're not going to talk me out of wanting to give the orange guy another chance at Prez, after what the country has been through with 4 years of The Chairman and The Party. Drill baby drill!
And I think one reason why Trump may be upset with the USMCA and its other signees, is that they are not keeping their part of the bargain. That'd be my guess.
But then again, maybe he's just being mean.
Yeah that must be it. Trump would never break a promise. His word is his bond. Ignore what he says, trust what he means. Canada is just being so mean to us. Very unfair.
Glad I could educate you as to the existence of the USMCA. News travels slowly out to Owosso, I get it.
Tweet
Comment