That's the million dollar question.  If we take into account what Trump says(illegal northern and southern border crossings, drug smuggling) and who Trump is(petty, arrogant, tough), I concluded this: oil from Canada, extortion from both.

There was a hack a few years ago, that deleted years worth of comments from most of the moderators, and several of the biggest site users. 

It broke numerous threads, and that's why that thread got replaced.

Moderators don't even have the ability to delete posts, unless we similarly got emboldened to hack the website. A few admins can delete posts if they go directly to the database, but it tends to break things. Lots of links to posts and threads were broken, and it's been a huge frustration. 

So we want to extort them for stuff, nothing to do with fairness or whatever like we can argue with China. So then my argument is that this is a bad move to extort your closest allies in the world. We hurt our legitimacy on the world stage for minimal short term gains. 

Essentially, but not for stuff.  More for influence - if Trump thinks the US is getting the low in a 60/40 deal with Mexico or Canada, he wants to be able to push closer to 50/50.  

The cartels run Mexico and Sheinbaum fears them; he wants to be able to help fix that issue but in return for that help he wants a better deal with the border and imports.  

Tariffs, should they stay in place, are long term gains.  Your argument for hurting our legitimacy - when Trump won in 2016, legitimacy went out the window.  Most countries hate Trump but respect him and/or his power as president enough to play ball.  It's been a 9 year love-hate relationship with the rest of the world.

He's the one that made the recent deal. Why would anyone make a trade deal with America ever again knowing our word means absolutely nothing? 

Tariffs can be long term gains in certain ways if they target specific industries that you want to strengthen for non economic reasons. Economically it's all a loss. I agree that legitimacy was hurt by electing Trump, but it can always get worse. 

On a slightly separate topic, I wonder who Trump talks about as the allies of the US? I don't know if I recall him ever talking in those terms. Says nice stuff about the specific people that he talks to (like the leaders of other countries if they largely agree with him) but I don't recall him talking about other countries as allies of the US.

They'll happily make a deal with the US it just won't be as sweet as with administrations in the past.  

We both know there's very little legitimate about politics in general.  The reason other counties hate working with Trump is because he's going to haggle. 

Israel. 

There are four general foreign-policy strategies in the U.S, named after prominent political figures who held them: Jacksonian, Jeffersonian, Wilsonian, and Hamiltonian. In the 20th and 21st century most American presidents have taken a Wilsonian stance, that the U.S needs to "make the world safe for democracy." 

Trump's policy has been a combination of Jacksonianism (manifest destiny, "America first") and Jeffersonianism (relative isolationism, non-interventionism.) Of course more heavily, especially rhetorically, akin to the prior than the latter. Regardless, both are positions very much critical of the U.S having any permanent alliances. So American Trump fans (not Trump, because he doesn't hold a consistent ideology) would probably tell you that no country are permanent allies of the U.S and the U.S should decide who the temporary allies are based on its interests and the interests of the population in each unique conflict. 

How that plays in practice of course, is very different from the ideology, because the world is a lot more complicated than these ideals. 

What goes on in threads? Discussion, usually But I was literally just asking if the situation has changed recently or if it's always been this way.

Trump is a disgrace of a human being, so you would expect at least the Christian conservatives to shun him. I'm also not getting the impression that the more traditional right is exactly fond of him but have to tolerate him due to his sufficient popularity among the masses. You don't exactly have to be a liberal to dislike Trump.

Does he want our oil or not?

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2024/market-snapshot-almost-all-canadian-crude-oil-exports-went-to-the-united-states-in-2023.html

We can ramp up export to other countries instead and make our oil more expensive for Americans with export tarrifs. Who is that going to hurt more? The people paying at the pump that don't have money to spare. And there are also ideas floating to cut off electricity supply to the states.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crude-oil-tariffs-united-states-canada-1.7434926

Nonetheless, there are reasons to believe that Canada's strongest cards in a trade war are not what it would decline to buy, but rather what it would decline to sell. Oil is not the only resource card that Canada holds, says Lawrence Herman, an international trade lawyer and former Canadian diplomat.

"It's probably the maximum leverage we have — the weapon, if you want to put it that way, that would have the most impact on the U.S. side. But as we all know, it is highly divisive politically in Canada.

"There are ways, however, in which this could be done," Herman told CBC News, pointing to Ontario Premier Doug Ford's willingness to cut off electricity exports that many northern states heavily depend on.

The North American electrical grid sprawls across the U.S.-Canadian border in a series of 'interconnections' that run north-south rather than east-west. Many U.S. states depend on power generated in Canada.



Fact is, the US is pretty reliant on Canadian oil nowadays, so who is holding the bargaining chips?

Questions remain, though. A big one is: who would end up having to eat those losses? Would it be the U.S. refiners themselves? Would they pass on all of the costs to the American consumer, as the Canadian government would hope? Or would they force the Canadian suppliers to lower their prices, since Canadian producers are also hostages of the same fixed transportation network, and would struggle to find other markets?

Some analysts believe that all three would end up sharing the cost, and past experience has shown that a 20 per cent increase in cost at the refinery level typically translates to about a 10 per cent increase at the retail pumps.

All of those considerations are at play as Canadian politicians ponder their nuclear option, along with the concerns about national unity.

But even though the cost would be high, says Herman, the threat should stay on the table.

"Trump is threatening the Canadian economy and Canadian livelihood, and in effect threatening Canada as a country. And we have to respond accordingly," he said.

"It's very hard to orchestrate something where the pain or the difficulties are felt equally across the country. Some regions, some sectors, may feel the pain more than others. But as Doug Ford rightly said, we've got to deal with this as a national matter, as something that affects Canada as a whole."

Trump thinks he can force us into becoming the 51st state with trade tarrifs. Ludicrous. Meanwhile the damage is already done. The sentiment about Americans is changing here fast.