Summations Only

Not in those same words but the ideas I think you refer to appear in The Federalist Papers, nos. 65 & 66. These were particularly involved with the political nature of impeachment, as opposed to the criminal nature of other prosecutions, and why they chose a larger body of politicians to sit in judgement rather than a smaller panel of jurists.

Really?There was no Canada in 1812. And as an indication that Canada is a national security threat, citing the war of 1812 is even more ridiculous given that the burning of the US Capital was done by British Troops as a response to an invasion of Canada by the United States.We might just as well cite attacks by Native Americans from what is now Canada on what is now the US as a current national security threat.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ah, Justin Trudeau should've just said back to Trump "...I know...they said it was a dump...."

To be fair, we do like to take credit for it.

Yes, really. This is just a bit of history with a bit of whimsical speculation. It doesn't mean Trump's citing the burning of the White House during the War of 1812 as evidence of US peril today at Canadian hands wasn't utter inanity. Not sure what point you're making here. Sure things were organized politically a bit differently back then, but why is referring to it as Canada a problem? The burning of Washington was in part a reprisal for the burning of Port Dover on Lake Erie by American forces earlier in 1814. To speculate a bit, I think the British would have taken Washington anyway, but because of Port Dover they burned it, too.--Percy

Trudeau should have taken a tough line with Trump: "Yeah, and if you don't straighten up we'll burn it again!" --Percy

When Trump became president I viewed him as a buffoon, and my concern was how well the country would survive having an incompetent in charge. I thought we'd emerge okay.My views have changed. While Trump is ignorant and buffoonish concerning many things, he has the instincts, inclinations and innate cunning of a tyrant. I no longer think we'll emerge okay. His tax cuts will either cause extreme inflation or, more likely, a severe trimming of the federal budget through drastic cutbacks in social programs. Allies and trading partners will become more and more alienated, raising the price of goods and increasing inflation. There's some weird thing between Trump and Russia that will only become more weird, and there's no way to predict where it will lead. Tariffs will hurt American business and the unemployment trend will soon reverse and begin growing again, not this year, but soon enough to become an issue in the 2020 election. Recession is possible. The reversal of some of the protections put in place after the 2008 financial meltdown will cause yet another financial meltdown, though the timing and specifics are impossible to predict. Our institutions are under attack. Congress has become a Trump lackey. A constitutional crisis may yet rise out of Trump's efforts to hold Mueller at bay.Relevant editorial in today's Washington Post: Trump is no joke--Percy

Maine has switched to IRV and will use it in their June 12th primaries. Also on the ballot is an item about keeping IRV.--Percy

To Trump that isn't a threat. Instead, loss of the White House buildings la 1814 would only give him the excuse to move business to office spaces belonging to his businesses so he can lease them to the US Govt, at full price of course. Plus, those offices would be serviced (eg, catering, custodial) by others of Trump's businesses. And all the while, the cash will be flowing into Trump's own pockets.Anyone who doubts that outcome, just consider how it's gone so far. Seemingly endless golf weekends at Trump resorts where the US Govt had to pay Trump for his large entourage to travel to and from that Trump resort where the US Govt had to pay Trump for their rooms and meals, again at full price I have to assume. Both campaign headquarters (2016 & 2020) are in Trump Tower where they pay a lease to Trump. While there, they are catered by Trump caterers. That's even more money flowing into Trump's pockets. With all this talk about Trump not wanting to win the election, it should seem odd that practically the very next day Trump filed to run for re-election. But considering how profitable Trump found his campaign to be, he wanted to keep that cash cow alive.

Because that would be incorrect and misleading? Did the example I gave about Native Americans not make my point.What's wrong with referring to the British government in 1812 as Canada is that it is ridiculous.ABE:"political organized a bit differently"Completely differently, Percy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not really. Agreed, though not anything I said. What was so different?--Percy

I cannot take this question seriously. You may have the last word.

There were two Canadas in 1812.Not really sure what the relevance of this discussion is, but I have a more serious question.Trump keeps justifying his tarrifs with comments about how bad the US trade deals are withother countries - is he right? I've not actually seen this addressed at all in the press.One thing he tweeted about the other day was the extraordinarily high duty Canada slaps on US dairy imports, and it appears Trump was correct - Canada charges duty of 270% on dairy. It's not a duty targeted at the US, of course - it applies to everyone, though I'm sure it's likely that US dairy producers are worst hit for geographical reasons.Clearly I don't understand things like NAFTA - how is it that Canada is slapping such enormous markups on imports from its NAFTA partners, and does the US have similar tarriffs on other products? In Europe we have a European Free Trade Area; within which there are almost no duties - that's kind of the point. Clearly NAFTA is not the same thing.But my bigger question is whether Trump is actually right for once. Do American producers face bigger barriers in exportng to Europe or Canada than vice versa? Or is Trump once again talking out of his arse?

The US has a gun lobby; we have a milk lobby.Supply management in the dairy industry is designed to stabilize the supply of milk in Canada and ensure a fair price for the producers without direct subsidies. My impression is that the policy exists largely to appease Quebec.By the way:

quote:

---

— U.S. dairy exports to Canada in 2016: US$631.6 million.

​

— Canadian dairy exports to the U.S. in 2016: $112.6 million. source

---

So, waa waa waa, poor babies. "Free trade Agreement" is an oxymoron. If you have to agree on what isn't free, it isn't free.

the tariff is aimed at equalizing the prices between canadian dairy products and the heavily government subsidized US dairy products. (or so i've read)Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.