Drifting to war.

[Ben1445]

In other words you are trying to deceive me by selling a bridge to me. Christians should not try to deceive one another. God does not want us to go around killing people for our billionaires. For their prosperity. You have been taught hatred by the rich to kill their enemies. You will go to war with whoever and violate God's law's and will for them. Life is cheap for them. They will throw away your life as long as they are winning and the Public hasn't told them no. They have the Globalist Billionaires Owned News Medias on their side and you will obey them. You should obey God instead of them. They murder people. They steal from other people. God does not want you to do that. There would be no war if it wasn't for the Billionaires.

Wow!!
In other words, for people who might not know what I meant, you are easily led off by magnificent tales. Gullible.
And you knew exactly what I was saying.

So you are in favor of someone else’s billionaires ?
You have billionaires?
I wouldn’t know what it is like to own a billionaire.

You have been taught hatred of the rich. You have been taught that the billionaires are controlling the world. My how God would be surprised to find out that you can just buy the world with money. But as I recall, Jesus already knew better.

You are upset at western billionaires??
You cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[JonC]

I understand what he was hired to do but it would be good if he had his facts straight.

Canada has not taken advantage of the US. That is just a figment of the US imagination.

But you will probably disagree with that so we will leave it where it is.

The "taken advantage of" issue is based on looking at it as a business deal. The relationship between the US snd Canada has always benefited Canada more (been more favorable to Canada).

But given the economies I get why. Canada has looked after its own interest first - as it should be. I am not sure that the US is wrong to look after its own interests first.

 

[Silverhair]

The "taken advantage of" issue is based on looking at it as a business deal. The relationship between the US snd Canada has always benefited Canada more (been more favorable to Canada).

But given the economies I get why. Canada has looked after its own interest first - as it should be. I am not sure that the US is wrong to look after its own interests first.

Actually if you look at the economic impact on both countries it is the the US that has done better from CUSMA.

But the reality is that all three countries would be worse off without CUSMA.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we will get back to a good trading agreement that is of benefit to all three countries.

 

[Conan]

Canada's economy is intertwined with the USA. It couldn't break with the United States if wanted to. We'll I suppose if God ordered it to it could. But that's the only reason it would. Despite the truthful remarks of the Canadian leader, its a pretended rift between Europe and the United States. Europe's leadership was captured long ago. That's what the Europian Union is for, so none could do something independently. Hegseth has already given his marching orders for Europe. They are to increase their military spending from 2% to 5% of the GDP and handle the burden of the Ukraine war for the United States. That's what proxies are for. We have our European proxies between us and Russia. They are to handle Russia why we go after China. The future does not look promising.

 

[Ben1445]

What is CUSMA? You can’t just make up whatever you want to. You’re upset with Trump for making that agreement. So you just rename it? You’re living in denial.

 

[Conan]

What is CUSMA? You can’t just make up whatever you want to. You’re upset with Trump for making that agreement. So you just rename it? You’re living in denial.

Canada USA Mexico Agreement.

https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/index.aspx?lang=eng

 

[Ben1445]

Canada USA Mexico Agreement.

https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/index.aspx?lang=eng

Can you show me that from a US website?
Are you in denial too?

 

[Ben1445]

Canada USA Mexico Agreement.

https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/index.aspx?lang=eng

Google it and the first thing that comes up is USMCA.
If Canada doesn’t want to be last, they should not drag their feet.

 

[JonC]

Actually if you look at the economic impact on both countries it is the the US that has done better from CUSMA.

But the reality is that all three countries would be worse off without CUSMA.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we will get back to a good trading agreement that is of benefit to all three countries.

I agree we need "cooler heads", but at the same time I think we have to consider Trump's threats as exaggerations (based on how he has used those threats).

We like definites - you do this and I will do that. But Trump seems to look at everything as a negotiation - start off with an outrageous state, what you know will not happen, and make the other party move closer to that state (often you are offered in negotiation more than you thought you would get).

That is both a benefit and a bane. The US benefits but at the same time markets are reactionary and uncertainty creates volatility.

I think most would agree that the US and Canada have the opportunity to benefit one another.

The scary part is the US does not need Canada (although the US could benefit, it would survive without Canada). I am not asking confident Canada would survive isolated from the US.

This makes Trump appear to be a "bully", trying to take lunch money from the lesser nations.

 

[Silverhair]

I agree we need "cooler heads", but at the same time I think we have to consider Trump's threats as exaggerations (based on how he has used those threats).

We like definites - you do this and I will do that. But Trump seems to look at everything as a negotiation - start off with an outrageous state, what you know will not happen, and make the other party move closer to that state (often you are offered in negotiation more than you thought you would get).

That is both a benefit and a bane. The US benefits but at the same time markets are reactionary and uncertainty creates volatility.

I think most would agree that the US and Canada have the opportunity to benefit one another.

The scary part is the US does not need Canada (although the US could benefit, it would survive without Canada). I am not asking confident Canada would survive isolated from the US.

This makes Trump appear to be a "bully", trying to take lunch money from the lesser nations.

The reality is that the US needs Canada but they just do not like admitting it.

→ 63% of U.S. crude oil imports come from Canada (not the Middle East, not Venezuela—Canada)

→ 98% of U.S. natural gas imports are Canadian

→ 82% of electricity imports flow south from Canadian power plants

→ $151 billion in annual energy trade that American infrastructure literally cannot function without

→ $350 billion in U.S. exports to Canada—more than to any other country

We have not even looked at the minerals, the potash, etc.

Our two economies are so intertwined that to separate them would cause enormous harm to both countries and for what benefit for either?

Here is a video that will give you some insight into why the rants of Trum* and his administration have been so short sighted. Tes I know it is AI generated but the information is still accurate.

 

[JonC]

The reality is that the US needs Canada but they just do not like admitting it.

→ 63% of U.S. crude oil imports come from Canada (not the Middle East, not Venezuela—Canada)

→ 98% of U.S. natural gas imports are Canadian

→ 82% of electricity imports flow south from Canadian power plants

→ $151 billion in annual energy trade that American infrastructure literally cannot function without

→ $350 billion in U.S. exports to Canada—more than to any other country

We have not even looked at the minerals, the potash, etc.

Our two economies are so intertwined that to separate them would cause enormous harm to both countries and for what benefit for either?

Here is a video that will give you some insight into why the rants of Trum* and his administration have been so short sighted. Tes I know it is AI generated but the information is still accurate.

The US currently needs Canada in the North Eastern area (due to infrastructure), but not in a way that cannot otherwise be replaced

You have to remember that the US is a net exporter of energy. We just make more exporting oil and refining "sour" oil domestically.

The US is pretty much self sustainable in terms of energy. We produce 90% to over 100% of what we woukd need (although demand is growing) and import 17%.

In other words, the challenge to no longer import energy from Canada is not production (we produce more than we consume, to include oil and natural gas) but logistics and shifting to consume a substantial part of what we export.

The US can function without importing any energy from Canada, except in a few areas where the infrastructure is dependent on Canada (which is why the US is looking at changing that infrastructure).

Canada also produces more energy than it uses.


It would be a mistake to consider either dependent on the other for energy (both the US and Canada are net exporters).


My point is the US can survive without Canada. It would be ugly, the infrastructure would have to be updated, and exporting energy would have to take a back seat to supplying the US needs. I am not sure how Canada would fair. They need to build stronger economic ties with China and India.


Trump is correct that we do not need Canada. We want to maintain a partnership. Both countries benefit from a partnership. But "need" is not necessarily achieving the most ideal situation.

 

[Silverhair]

The US currently needs Canada in the North Eastern area (due to infrastructure), but not in a way that cannot otherwise be replaced

You have to remember that the US is a net exporter of energy. We just make more exporting oil and refining "sour" oil domestically.

The US is pretty much self sustainable in terms of energy. We produce 90% to over 100% of what we woukd need (although demand is growing) and import 17%.

In other words, the challenge to no longer import energy from Canada is not production (we produce more than we consume, to include oil and natural gas) but logistics and shifting to consume a substantial part of what we export.

The US can function without importing any energy from Canada, except in a few areas where the infrastructure is dependent on Canada (which is why the US is looking at changing that infrastructure).

Canada also produces more energy than it uses.


It would be a mistake to consider either dependent on the other for energy (both the US and Canada are net exporters).


My point is the US can survive without Canada. It would be ugly, the infrastructure would have to be updated, and exporting energy would have to take a back seat to supplying the US needs. I am not sure how Canada would fair. They need to build stronger economic ties with China and India.


Trump is correct that we do not need Canada. We want to maintain a partnership. Both countries benefit from a partnership. But "need" is not necessarily achieving the most ideal situation.

You could do that but at what cost and how long would it take? The oil you need for your heavy trucks only comes from the crude you get from us or the country you just invaded but they do not have the amount you need. What the US exports is light sweet crude.

The silly part is that this would not be a problem if Trum* had not got his knickers in a knot trying to prove he is the great negotiator which it is obvious he is not.

The US can survive with out Canada to a point just as Canada can survive with out the US to a point.

I agree that we should have a partnership but that does not seem to be what Trum* wants. His view seems to be that the US wins and everyone else looses. That may have worked in business but not in dealing with sovereign countries.

All he has succeeded in doing is showing the world that the US is not trustworthy so they are making trade deals without the US considered.

CUSMA could have made the us the strongest trading block in the world but I think it is doomed to fail due to one man's arrogance.

 

[JonC]

You could do that but at what cost and how long would it take? The oil you need for your heavy trucks only comes from the crude you get from us or the country you just invaded but they do not have the amount you need. What the US exports is light sweet crude.

The silly part is that this would not be a problem if Trum* had not got his knickers in a knot trying to prove he is the great negotiator which it is obvious he is not.

The US can survive with out Canada to a point just as Canada can survive with out the US to a point.

I agree that we should have a partnership but that does not seem to be what Trum* wants. His view seems to be that the US wins and everyone else looses. That may have worked in business but not in dealing with sovereign countries.

All he has succeeded in doing is showing the world that the US is not trustworthy so they are making trade deals without the US considered.

CUSMA could have made the us the strongest trading block in the world but I think it is doomed to fail due to one man's arrogance.

I think you missed my point. The US does not need to import oil. It makes sence to import oil and export "sweet crude", but that is because so many are not set up to refine higher sulfer content oil.

Logistics is more of the issue. It makes more sence, for example, to export oil from St Croix to Mexico. Sure it goes to Florida and Puerto Rico as well. But it is primarily exported.

In other words, "sweet oil" is more valuable as it is easier to refine than "sour oil". We import "sour oil" because we are set to refine it and export "sweet oil" because it is more valuable.

This does not mean we could not be energy independent. Quite the opposite. But this energy independence would be at the cost of the oil we export.

While I do not get Trump's beef with Canada, it is much more a problem for Canada than the US. Both Canada and the US benefit from a good relationship. But Canada is more dependent on the US (it is not an equal give and take).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it is good sometimes to meditate upon Psalm 37.
'Do not fret because of evildoers, nor be envious of the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither like the green herb............

I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a native green tree.
Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more; indeed, I sought him, but he could not be found.'

Sometimes powerful nations think it is their duty to intervene to bring down despots, but the results are seldom what they hope. Colonel Gadaffi was an evil man, and the West conspired to bring him down, but who can say that Libya is any better for his departure?
I have been praying that the Iranian regime would fall, and no doubt it will in God's good time, but I have my doubts that U.S. involvement will improve things. My advice to Christians in Iran, of whom I believe there are many in these days, would be this:

'Wait on the LORD, and keep His way, and He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.'

 

[Van]

Since countries are sovereign, they should not be dependent upon other countries for essentials, such as energy production, food production, health care, and national defense. The USA does NOT depend upon Canada for any essential.

 

[Silverhair]

This does not mean we could not be energy independent. Quite the opposite. But this energy independence would be at the cost of the oil we export.

It is not at the cost of the oil you export. It is that your system is not setup to refine that oil. The cost to reconfigure or build new systems would be enormous even setting aside the time required to do so. The US is dependent on the crude from Canada as the infrastructure is set up to transport it and refine it.

While I do not get Trump's beef with Canada, it is much more a problem for Canada than the US. Both Canada and the US benefit from a good relationship. But Canada is more dependent on the US (it is not an equal give and take).

I agree that it is more of a problem for us then for you and that is our problem to correct. That is why we are making trade deals with other countries.

We are in the enviable position of having what the world wants and needs. Now we just have to get a federal government that will get out of the way and allow those resources to be developed.

 

[Silverhair]

Since countries are sovereign, they should not be dependent upon other countries for essentials, such as energy production, food production, health care, and national defense. The USA does NOT depend upon Canada for any essential.

You only with that were true Van.

 

[Van]

You only with that were true Van.

Yet another well studied taint so post.

 

[Silverhair]

Yet another well studied taint so post.

Van read what I posted. You have reversed what I wrote and then make silly claims.

 

[JonC]

It is not at the cost of the oil you export. It is that your system is not setup to refine that oil. The cost to reconfigure or build new systems would be enormous even setting aside the time required to do so. The US is dependent on the crude from Canada as the infrastructure is set up to transport it and refine it.


I agree that it is more of a problem for us then for you and that is our problem to correct. That is why we are making trade deals with other countries.

We are in the enviable position of having what the world wants and needs. Now we just have to get a federal government that will get out of the way and allow those resources to be developed.

The US can (and does) refine "sweet oil", but it is more profitable to sell it to areas that cannot refine oil with a higher suffer content.
The refineries can shift to use "sweet oil" as it is easier to process. Many in the Mid-west have made that transition.

I agree that Canada is a beautiful country with many natural resources. Economically the US and Canada share a mutual benefit.

But at the end of the day the US is not dependent on Canada. The US can supply its ow energy, food, defense, etc. It is more beneficial for both nations to maintain a close relation, but not necessary on the part of the US.