Davin News Server

On 2025-03-12 14:41, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-03-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> 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 outdated and needs to be amended?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 because it's outdated and needs to be amended.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.

You had nothing to reply to here, did you?

Was it on-topic enough for you?

>>
>>>
>>> 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?

Same here.

>>
>>> 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.
> 
> Score: -9999 for you again.
> Try staying on topic next time.
Except for a fun aside showing up your double-standard, all of what I 
posted was on-topic for what you previously replied.