dwy000

It's also fine if there's a goal you want to achieve. Reducing drug flow FROM CANADA is the stupidest goal in history to go to the mattresses on.

You really need to stop with the Fox talking points and start thinking for yourself. There is nothing about tarriffs on Canada because of drugs that makes any sense or is positive for America. This is about Trump's ego.

I get enjoying shaking things up and doing things differently. But this is not some renaming of a mountain or talking about pronouns. This is fucking with the global economy and making potentially permanent changes by many of the US's biggest allies, all for a PR stunt and ego. And that's assuming it IS shortlived (which with Trump is never a safe.bet). And as much as you rail on the politicians and process, business thrives on stability and predictability. Chaos for the sake of ego is just bad leadership regardless of your political or policy views.

But you admitted it was largely a meaningless stunt to maybe get some more defense spending and keep a campaign promise. So do you support the tarriffs and chaos to get that tiny thing as an outcome? That was good for America?

So just to be clear, Greg, you are supportive of the tarriffs? Even though you admit they are largely a PR stunt to be able to claim he kept a campaign promise. You support that?

The sad part for America is i completely agree. This will be short term chaos for nothing. It's a PR stunt to show he fulfilled a campaign promise. It's not good for American jobs, it's not good for American consumers. It's not good for America's global relationships. It's not good for prices. It's not good for anyone except Trump's ego. And yet mindless hoards will believe this as a great thing because Hannity told them so.

That would suggest that Trump is plunging the country into an expensive trade war, causing a rift with its closest allies, causing what will likely be interim chaos in the home building and auto sectors (plus food), all for some defense spending from a country that only has one border? How is any of that good for America??? What is the win?

Since its obviously not about drugs or immigration (thats just the excuse) youre suggesting the tarriffs are just a PR stunt that will likely end with a surface level deal that really won't impact anything?

The Canadian tarriffs have nothing to do with drugs or immigration. They have nothing to with Nato spending or back door China issues - Trump doesn't have the intelligence for 3rd level thinking like that. He wants to be a bully and show he's a tough guy. That's it. There's no other reason. It's the same thing with Greenland and Panama and whatever stupid diversion comes into his head next. If he put this level of focus on things that would actually make a difference and improve Americans lives it would be amazing what could be accomplished. But this is 100% about him and his ego. That's it.

America "only" is a fraction as powerful and supported as America the leader and supporter of the world. There are others (ie China) more than willing to step into that role.

Good lord, where do you get your information? You really need to turn off Fox for a while. This is just real kool aid level stuff.

Huh? We are agreeing!! I don't think Mexican fentanyl is coming into the US thru Canada. And i don't think tarriffs work to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe your "that's a shitload of fentanyl" was sarcastic and it doesn't come across on a post. To Parsads point, if Canada is lax on Chinese security i can't figure out how driving Canada towards China is helpful to the US

My understanding is that the ingredients are from China but the production is in Mexico. Regardless, my point is that putting tarriffs on your largest trading partner to stop something that they aren't doing (in any amount that makes a difference) is irrational and self-harming.

And multiple the same for Mexico.

Actually, most of it comes from Mexico, through the US. Canada isn't a major producer of fentanyl and certainly not a major exporter.

Yes but to put it into perspective there was 26,700 pounds from Mexico in 2023.

I suspect (and am hopeful) that this will all blow over in a couple of weeks. An agreement will be reached with Trump declaring some major victory, the tarriffs will be cancelled and ultimately nothing will change. Fentanyl will still be around, illegal immigrants will continue to cross the borders etc. The longer term impacts however will be less obvious and more impactful. Much like Germany realizing it was over exposed to a single counterparty in heating gas, Canada, Mexico, China and others will realize they need to diversify away from being too exposed to uncertainty and the whims of a single partner. The big winner will likely be China who will run around signing trade pacts with everyone. Just my guess

My guess is about 3% down (maybe closer to 5% out of the gate).

I literally posted about 3 posts ago that illegal immigration is a problem (although not just about Mexico and not just for the US)! If.you posted the stats they should be easy to repost, right?

No, it's pointless because you claimed to have stats supporting your position and you obviously don't. What are you basing your position on if not facts?

Illegal immigration has always been a problem. For hundreds of years. And always will be for a developed country. That's not the question. So, you're saying you don't actually have any stats supporting your position?

As do most of those silicon valley execs! They're just playing nice with whomever is in charge, just like they did in the other direction.

Again, can you please post the stats on immigration and related crime? Having a problem is an easy acknowledgement. Imposing tariffs as a solution is just stupid.

Perhaps you could post those stats, since you are familiar with them? Interested to see those (and the source)

If you actually think the WSJ is leftist, you have been brainwashed by Newsmax (not Fox.because that's also owned by the "leftie" Rupert Murdoch). What does any of this have to do with Canada and the EU where the US is a source of drugs not a destination?