I think you are ignoring the situation of a WIN-win relationship where one party is winning much more at the other party's expense. Just because it may be net positive for both countries that doesn't mean that it's a fair arrangement. The excuse that the smaller winner is still technically winning is not a good excuse against pushing for a more fair deal.

▲

AngryData an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In what way was the US not the big winner already? Canada bought all sorts of military equipment from the US, followed 99.9% of US foreign policy, produced tons of raw materials for the US economy and freely traded it for finished goods and consumables, contributed to many US wars. Canada gave US priority in pretty much every international trade and political matter and even bandwagoned onto many US laws.

Literally the only losing move was to mess with our relations to them.

	▲	charcircuit 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The US can become an even bigger winner than it is now as it's the greatest country on earth.

▲

benfortuna an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That just sounds like greed. It's not enough to be winning, I need to be winning as much if not more than everyone else.

	▲	charcircuit 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This line of thinking would be similar to the people who think that running a business well is corporate greed. Worse run businesses don't need to be given better deals from well run businesses.

▲

Arodex an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Where is Trump pushing for a "more fair" deal? State what is his metric and demonstrate it is "fair" for both sides.

Show us it isn't just lies and bad faith.

▲

charcircuit 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

It is a common theme in his speeches on tariffs.

	▲	Arodex 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, you don't understand: what exactly is "unfair" and what "fair" alternative is he proposing? And show us how it is fair for both sides.