Iran

[Sarge]

View attachment 17691

This is hilarious, and not entirely inaccurate. Mr. Super negotiator has gotten played. For as much as he talks about making deals, he hasn’t made that many worth mentioning.

 

[Steeltime]

This is hilarious, and not entirely inaccurate. Mr. Super negotiator has gotten played. For as much as he talks about making deals, he hasn’t made that many worth mentioning.

His tariff threats in the first term resulted in some very good concessions from China, the European Union, and Canada. The Middle East "deals" stink on ice. Trump had no reason to launch attacks on Iran - NONE - and given that he campaigned and was elected on "No More Wars" our present circumstance is 100% unacceptable.

 

[Confluence]

His tariff threats in the first term resulted in some very good concessions from China, the European Union, and Canada. The Middle East "deals" stink on ice. Trump had no reason to launch attacks on Iran - NONE - and given that he campaigned and was elected on "No More Wars" our present circumstance is 100% unacceptable.

eh?

Key developments in Canada-U.S. trade over the period include:No New Trade Pacts: Rather than negotiating a new trade deal, Canada has been focused on navigating tariff disputes and preparing for the mandatory six-year review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Border Security Concessions: To combat Trump's proposed tariffs, Canada announced a CA$1.3 billion border security investment to alleviate U.S. concerns regarding illicit fentanyl and illegal immigration.

Escalating Tariffs: Throughout 2025, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on various Canadian goods—including steel, aluminum, autos, and softwood lumber. These tariffs led Canada to pursue broader trade diversifications in the Indo-Pacific and globally.

Supreme Court Invalidation: A significant portion of the U.S. tariffs implemented on Canadian goods were invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling in early 2026, which ended the broadest 25% tariff sweeps but kept tensions high heading into the USMCA Review 2026.

 

[Steeltime]

Confluence, the tariffs were designed to do two things: Force foreign nations to lower their tariffs or face reprisal, and when the tariffs were implemented, to promote manufacturing in the United States. The undeniable fact is that since the US had a massive trade deficit with the nations subject to the tariffs, the end game was never a winner for the foreign nations - never. They needed the US markets much, much more than the United States needed their exports.

The trade deficit with Canada is driven by oil and gas imports. The tariff promoted energy production in the United States. The broader result was a positive increase in manufacturing in the United States the past two-plus years.

Further, as you pointed out, Canada is spending significantly more on border security because of the tariff and tariff threats. So the idea that the tariffs and tariff threats did not produce significant manufacturing increases in the United States is wrong; the tariffs and tariff threats forced dozens of nations to starting paying for their own defense rather than simply having American taxpayers foot the bill; and the tariffs and tariff threats led directly to a massive downturn in illegal immigration and a border that actually means something.

The crescendo of tARiFfS BaD was always a comment about tariffs imposed by the United States against other nations, never the tariffs imposed on United States exports.

 

[Confluence]

Confluence, the tariffs were designed to do two things: Force foreign nations to lower their tariffs or face reprisal, and when the tariffs were implemented, to promote manufacturing in the United States. The undeniable fact is that since the US had a massive trade deficit with the nations subject to the tariffs, the end game was never a winner for the foreign nations - never. They needed the US markets much, much more than the United States needed their exports.

The trade deficit with Canada is driven by oil and gas imports. The tariff promoted energy production in the United States. The broader result was a positive increase in manufacturing in the United States the past two-plus years.

View attachment 17698

Further, as you pointed out, Canada is spending significantly more on border security because of the tariff and tariff threats. So the idea that the tariffs and tariff threats did not produce significant manufacturing increases in the United States is wrong; the tariffs and tariff threats forced dozens of nations to starting paying for their own defense rather than simply having American taxpayers foot the bill; and the tariffs and tariff threats led directly to a massive downturn in illegal immigration and a border that actually means something.

The crescendo of tARiFfS BaD was always a comment about tariffs imposed by the United States against other nations, never the tariffs imposed on United States exports.

Canadian oil is sold at a discount to the US. That would be the opposite of a tariff.

How does that factor into your analysis?

You were just factually incorrect on your point re: Canada and seem unable to accept that. Oh well.

 

[Steeltime]

Canadian oil is sold at a discount to the US. That would be the opposite of a tariff.

How does that factor into your analysis?

You were just factually incorrect on your point re: Canada and seem unable to accept that. Oh well.

The Canada tariffs excluded energy products (gas, oil) because Canada was not using tariffs as a weapon to protect their energy sector. Canada did not need to protect the energy sector since it did not need the protection due to the abundance of oil, shale oil and natural gas. That is a non-issue in your analysis.

And apparently you are one who thinks what was happening to the American manufacturing core - stripping it bare and shipping it overseas - was okey-dokey and having tens of millions of illegals flood our nation was just fine. I disagree and you are correct, I am not going to accept your contrary position.

 

[Confluence]

The Canada tariffs excluded energy products (gas, oil) because Canada was not using tariffs as a weapon to protect their energy sector. Canada did not need to protect the energy sector since it did not need the protection due to the abundance of oil, shale oil and natural gas. That is a non-issue in your analysis.

What Canadian tariffs was Canada using as a weapon? Please be specific.

And apparently you are one who thinks what was happening to the American manufacturing core - stripping it bare and shipping it overseas - was okey-dokey and having tens of millions of illegals flood our nation was just fine. I disagree and you are correct, I am not going to accept your contrary position.

I never commented on anything except your incorrect statement about Canada ,
because you were in error.

I have no problem with any American strategy to rebuild American industry and have never said anything to the contrary.

One further comment: you made a factual error several posts above and seem to have trouble squaring that. Ok, well fine.
What then of the you literally making words up about things i never commented on? You seem to want to litigate your narrative; i agree with you except where you made the factual error about Canada.