Davin News Server

On 2025-03-13 17:03, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-03-13, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> 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 outdated and needs to be amended?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 because it's outdated and needs to be amended.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.
> 
> Nope.
> I choose not to engage in an ever ending meta thread where everything including
> the kitchen sink gets brought into the discussion.

Says the guy who added discussions about the Panama Canal into a thread 
that until then had been about tariffs....

> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It's a fair point, but the crux of the discussion is the Panama canal
> and from my POV trade agreements sometimes, often times in fact, need to
> be renegotiated as things change.

And yet when I replied on both those topics, you tried to claim I was 
off-topic...

> 
> I replied here:
> 
> " 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? "

You mean where you compared Trump's first negotiated trade agreement to 
be the work of someone with the mind of a child?

And declaring an "economic emergency" (that doesn't actually exist) in 
order to unilaterally abrogate and agreement made in good faith isn't 
actually "renegogiating" is it?

> 
> There was no agreement with the Trans-Continental Railway.
> There is with the Panama Canal.
The sale of the Panama Canal back to the Panamanians isn't an ON-GOING 
agreement, doofus.

You do remember writing this:

"Carter sold the Panama canal for $1.00"

...right?