Davin News Server

On 2025-03-13 16:29, -hh wrote:
> 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 outdated and needs to be amended?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 because it's outdated and needs to be amended.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.
Not to mention that it turns out that most of the workers who died 
building the canal from 1904-1914 weren't US citizens.