Davin News Server

On 3/12/25 18:38, Alan wrote:
> 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 outdated and needs to be amended?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 because it's outdated and needs to be amended.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.

Pothead made a real cowardly & chickenshit duck-out.

FWIW, the parallel between Panama and the Trans-Continental Railway was 
a quite astute point: the argument of compensation for 'sacrifice' cuts 
both ways ... and while we're at it, let's take a chunk out of Red 
States for past wrongs in slavery ... 40 acres sounds about right.



-hh