Davin News Server

On 2025-03-12 14:19, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-03-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-03-12 13:56, pothead wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-12 11:14, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/Internal Democrat Polling Shows Party in Complete Brand Collapse25 21:30, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:12:53 -0800,  Alan says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-08 18:03, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:55:25 -0800,  Alan says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 21:31, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> President Trump: "What we're doing is freeing up our forests from
>>>>>>>>>> the environmental nonsense that they put on them, where you can't
>>>>>>>>>> cut down a tree."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Canada has been ripping us off for years on tariffs for lumber!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://x.com/i/status/1898058946339897426
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quick question:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who negotiated and signed the current trade deal between the US,
>>>>>>>>> Canada
>>>>>>>>> and Mexico?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quick question:
>>>>>>>> Who kept, for 4 years, the negotiated and signed current trade deal
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> the US, Canada and Mexico, which will no longer BE current, because
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> outdated and needs to be amended?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time to sign a different one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I told you... We Don't NEED Your Lumber, rich boy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who was it who negotiated it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, was it really?
>>>>>>> Hint: it's the same guy who's now claiming it was a terrible deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is... because it's outdated and needs to be amended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how that's not what what he signed said.  As signed, the USMCA was
>>>>> for a 14 year term (renewable), which would be through December 2033.
>>>>>
>>>>> And while some changes can of course be negotiated prior to that, the
>>>>> basic structure necessitates that they only be minor ones, because the
>>>>> business investment needs are based on time horizons of easily a decade
>>>>> if not longer.  Case in point, one would want the USMCA to be renewed at
>>>>> least once (eg, 28 years) for having adequate ramp for applying
>>>>> depreciation IAW GAAP in one's corporate business planning.
>>>> And Trump just tweeted... ...sorry, he just "truthed":
>>>>
>>>> 'Why would our Country allow another Country to supply us with
>>>> electricity, even for a small area? Who made these decisions, and why?'
>>>
>>> Trump is correct.
>>> Unless absolutely necessary.
>>> When the US depends upon other countries for needed goods then it gives
>>> up all control.
>>>
>>> What do you think is going to happen to the myriad of products, say prescription
>>> drugs for example, if the USA gets in a war with China?
>> Trump negotiated and ratified the current trade deal with Canada (and
>> Mexico) which includes the terms under which the Canada and the US trade
>> in electricity.
>>
>> Furthermore, he is only abrogating the terms of that deal by declaring
>> an "economic emergency"...
>>
>> ...and the US congress has had to declare that days are not really days
>> anymore so that that declaration can go on without end.
> 
> And it doesn't matter a hill of beans,
> Times change and deals may need to be renegotiated.
> Ever hear of actors, especially child actors, signing deals that they
> ended up renegotiating later because things changed?

So you're saying Trump had the capacity of a child when he signed the USMCA?

I can accept that.

> 
> Carter sold the Panama canal for $1.00 after many Americans lost their lives
> building it.

How do those deaths justify it's control in perpetuity by the United States?

> Maybe back then it seemed harmless but it no longer is as China is literally
> circling the place.

Funny you should mention.

Many Chinese workers died building the transcontinental railroad, so 
should China not a have at least some control in perpetuity of your 
railroads?

> 
> Again, depend upon foreign entities for critical needs and you give up control
> and thus become weak and vulnerable.

Not giving up control of territories when the local inhabitants want you 
out makes you an aggressor.