Trump Cancels Trade Talks With Canada

[gleem]

Canada aired a commercial last night during the World Series broadcast that featured clips of Ronald Reagan's 1987 anti-tariff speech. The Trump administration called it misleading and illegal.

"TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED," Trump posted on his social media platform.

"Canada is trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country," Trump said on Friday morning.

How illegal is it in comparison to Trump trying to save the Melei administration of Argentina with his $20B bailout (loan ? )?

From NPR

Earlier Thursday night, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute posted on X that an ad created by the government of Ontario “misrepresents the ‘Presidential Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade’ dated April 25, 1987.”

The actual speech
https://www.google.com/search?q=rea...ate=ive&vld=cid:e751a057,vid:Foggkeiwlp0,st:0

The commercial
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6951639

 

[dlu]

What I found odd us that originally Trump has no opinion on the piece.
Only after the Ronald Reagan centre made a beef about it as being dishonest to Reagan, did Trump cut off talks. So. some hot heads boiled over, and mouthpiece had to follow along.

How illegal is it

It is one country blatantly interfering in another's internal affairs.
Sigh As if that doesn't happen all the time.
So a non issue in all respects.

Really, talks of a deal were out there from both Trump and Carney ( Carney for the last 6 months --> I am the dealer guy to handle Trump )
The ad serves as a means to kibosh the deal ( if there ever was one close to being done ).

A useful smokescreen for behind the scenes dissatisfaction/
If the deal was in the making, the ad wouldn't matter - signed, sealed, everyone forgets.

Was there a deal? Days away.
Who is lying?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If the deal was in the making, the ad wouldn't matter - signed, sealed, everyone forgets.

Was there a deal? Days away.
Who is lying?

Interesting angle. It might have proved a useful excuse. We've seen it before. Does Trump have a genuine soft spot for Reagan? hmmmm seems unlikely.

 

[dlu]

Interesting angle. It might have proved a useful excuse. We've seen it before. Does Trump have a genuine soft spot for Reagan? hmmmm seems unlikely.

The whole ting doesn't make sense.

Canada has dropped from being in the 'top 5 best countries to live' to 35 I think it is, in the last few years.
Youth unemployment has jumped to 7%. - difficult to finance an education.
Young guy next door could'nt find a job so now he is making his own honey with bees as a business.
Soup kitchens run out of food - food inflation - homeless has gone up
etc
Kind of what is seen in some US and European cities
The Canadian difficulties are not Trump initiated directly as this stuff started during Biden, a result of bad govt policy under Trudeau, or world events. Trudeau's utopia is unravelling. We are not going to achieve Qatar status for citizens where one is born rich and all is free ( except for the imported workers in Qatar land ).

There is a budget coming on Nov 4.
The deficit from Carney is expected to be twice that when Trudeau left.
It might not pass as per what opposition parties are saying.

As a result, another election may be called, unless the Governor General can feel confident that the Conservatives should be given a chance. Slight chance. Carney may just do like Trudeau - prologue Parliament and govern by decree as he did just after the last win and call election in the spring. NO KINGS you say. Right.
All the while, Trump will be the demonized as done during the last time around, and the Liberals shoot up in popularity. Instead of 51st state Trump, it will be no deal tariff Trump
The ad falls right into place as its all Trumps fault.

Apparently, this is a mindset becoming more common as nothing makes sense.

 

[dlu]

This is interesting
Chinese embassy in the US played the Tariff speech April 07, 2025 on X to criticize the tariffs.
At that time it did not get much mileage from White House response, No complaints.
( perhaps because it was the full speech, without images and undoctored nor editorializes )


Newsweek from April for the proof.
Plus a bunch of tariff discussion.

China uses Ronald Reagan's 1987 speech to criticize Trump's tariffs

The Chinese Embassy has shared a clip of the iconic Republican criticizing tariffs, saying his words have "new relevance" amid Trump's global levies.

www.newsweek.com

 

[dlu]

Story keeps getting better.
Background,
Historically, Canada-US relationship had a 'behind the scenes' degree of cooperation that kept things running. Seldom reported as a stabilization between friendly states by the Canadian main stream media instead pretty much always had a 'the sky is falling' approach on any one disagreement, the relationship carried through the years, but began to unravel starting with Trump's first term and younger Trudeau.
Biden, being a Democrat, was characterized as being a 'friend' of Canada, by the naive Liberal and Liberal centered media. Case in point --> His first executive order was to cancel Keystone pipeline.

Anyways, the now in the news Canada-US cancellation of trade talks has overboiled with Pete Hoekstra, Donald Trump’s ambassador to Canada having a meltdowm towards David Paterson, Ontario’s representative in Washington.

LILLEY: Yelling, F-bombs, threats and the breakdown of Canada-U.S. relations

An event Monday night in Ottawa shows how off the rails things have become.

torontosun.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other news, Trump scored $trillion deals in the Asia Pacific conference.
Carney scored $billion.
Seems as if no one internationally wants to deal with Canada,
US just might be correct in that Canada, under the Liberals, are behaving like assholes.
The world is watching Canadian political and diplomatic incompetence

 

[dlu]

Senate resolution.
The comments tell a whole different story of hardened firewalled mindset.
Doug Ford's comment that it had to be said, opened their eyes, and started a discussion in USA
I guess he and 2 other people in a bubble really believe that

BREAKING NEWS: Senate Resolution To End President Trump’s Tariffs On Canada Passes In The Senate​

 

[Grinkle]

Senate resolution.

This is political theater on the part of the Senate R's at-large, allowing it to come to a vote. The House will not pass this measure, and if it did, Trump would veto and the Senate is nowhere close to being able to over-ride a veto. Senators are elected at the state level so they don't benefit from gerrymandered district-drawing like folks in the House of Representatives do. Senators are more at-risk of suffering political consequences for things that are unpopular at the state level. This lets them (all the Republican senators who might want to, since there was no filibuster) say the Senate is doing what it can to get rid of tariffs knowing full well nothing is going to come of it.

That said, the Republican senators who voted for this are -

• Susan Collins (Maine)
• Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
• Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
• Rand Paul (Kentucky)
• Thom Tillis (North Carolina)

and imo each of these senators does have a real policy problem with the tariffs and I think these specific Senators wouldn't suffer if it did pass.

Tillis, McConnell and Rand are retiring from the Senate. Collins and Murkowski are already on the MAGA bad-books; this vote won't change the existing level of animosity.

 

[dlu]

This is political theate

Of course.

The reason I posted the link is mainly to show how unthought out a lot of the comments were.
The online educated rational commentator ( voter ) seems to not exist, at least not a lot of them.

==============================
For a law to come into effect it has to pass both houses and receive President signature.
Does a resolution need to follow similar pattern, or is it just opinion from one group of elected peoples,

Does the vote by the 3 retiring help/hinder which party ( R or D ) replaces them?
Not sure where the other 2 are in their timespan of serving.

 

[Grinkle]

Does a resolution need to follow similar pattern

A resolution is kind of like a bill. It has the 'force of rule' within the chamber that passes it - so it can set House rules or Senate rules, for instance. So, for example, the Senate could eliminate the filibuster by passing a resolution within the Senate only, since the filibuster is not the result of any law, its just the result of a prior Senate resolution.

Except for provisions that might set chamber rules, if passed by one chamber only, its purely symbolic. If passed by both chambers but never submitted to the President for signature, its still purely symbolic. If passed by both chambers and presented to the President, its a law if he signs it. There may be some nuance I am missing, but as I understand it, its just another word for a bill in that case.

Does the vote by the 3 retiring help/hinder which party ( R or D ) replaces them?

I don't believe this can come back to bite R's. The only scenario I can think of is if the D's take the House and this Senate-passed resolution is still somehow 'live' so a now D controlled House might take it up and vote on it. I doubt that can happen, though, since it would have been a prior version of the Senate that passed the resolution - I'm not sure but I don't think the resolution lifetime can outlast the Senate that voted it in, pending resolutions probably have to be re-approved each time a new congress takes seat.

Not sure where the other 2 are in their timespan of serving.

Collins this term, Murkowski in 2028.

Collins could be in trouble, but what I have heard is that her threat is from the left (D's) so this vote might actually help rather than hurt her chances of holding on to her seat - its not obvious to me how that will play, but maybe to Maine residents its more clear; not sure.