this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
241 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19836 readers
4873 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Wall Street Journal mocked Trump’s tariff policy, calling his pause on Canadian and Mexican import taxes a retreat rather than a “genius power play.”

It criticized Trump for claiming victory despite making only minor trade deals.

Trump agreed to a 30-day delay after Mexico and Canada offered border security concessions.

The Journal previously called his trade war “the dumbest in history.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Canada didn't even make any actual concessions. The money we offered to spend on border security had already been committed for that purpose in December. So the only thing we're actually doing differently is adding the words "Fentanyl Czar" to someone's portfolio. Presumably, whoever is already in charge of public safety.

Amazing diplomacy there from Trump. 10/10.

[–] Nightwingdragon 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Here's the problem with it that people don't understand. First, the Trump administration has already declared that this is an intentional game of hardball that he is playing because he feels that Canada needs the US more than the US needs Canada, and intends to use that leverage to extract more concessions.

The original $1.3 billion was negotiated after Trump had already won the election and was basically Canada's opening bid in order to avoid this exact situation. The entire thing is basically checking off Trump's talking points and wasting resources on non-existent issues. And now Trump has already all but reneged on this. Twice. Canada was able to appease him by dangling the original deal in front of him like dangling shiny keys in front of a toddler the first time. Then they added more meaningless fluff like "fentanyl czar" and "joint strike force" the second time around.

The fact that it was negotiated in December is little more than semantics. A technicality that likely would never have been put in place at all had Trump not won the election. It was put in place as a way to pre-emptively appease Trump and it's already backfiring.

But Trump said he's going to revisit the issue in 30 days. What happens when Trump decides in 30 days that that's not good enough? What happens when symbolic gestures aren't enough? That is what happens when you adopt a policy of appeasement. Appeasement will not get Trump to back down. It will embolden him and make him come back and demand more. And eventually, symbolic gestures aren't going to be good enough.

Will Canada suddenly start being willing to pass Trump-friendly policies like Denmark just did in order to further appease him? Trump already got them to dedicate $1.3 billion to issues that don't even exist, he's already stated his plans to extract more concessions out of Canada, and Canada has already blinked twice. Why wouldn't Trump come back for more?

What happens when Trump decides that he needs part of British Columbia in order to directly connect Alaska with the continental US 'as a matter of national security'? Remember, that's exactly what he's doing with Greenland. What's Canada's plan? To appease him more? That's been working so well for Denmark. Or are you just gonna say "Oh, that section of BC was uninhabited anyway so it's not like Canada gave up territory it cared about. It was just symbolic."

This is what people have problems with. Canada did give Trump something. They gave Trump $1.3 billion to shut him up. Then they gave him the opportunity to come back and demand more and more and more instead of giving a forceful response from the get-go and sticking to it. This is Donald fucking Trump. Traditional diplomacy doesn't fucking work. Give this man a millimeter and it makes him believe he deserves the whole fucking light year. You cannot back down. You cannot blink. He only perceives these as "weaknesses" that he can and will attempt to exploit. Those symbloic, meaningless gestures are only going to keep Trump quiet for so long, and the next time will just cost everybody more and more. Because that's how Trump works.

[–] CharlesDarwin 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, but donvict will get to feel tingly in his mushroom and his idiot base will eat it up. Same with the low-info types that don't read past headlines.