Let's set the framing correctly because I think we're starting off on the wrong foot. The US is not in a desperate need of any product from Canada. Nice to have and super important? Yea. Desperate? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

> There have been $0 in tariffs on US dairy. The tariffs only come into play when the US imports pass a certain volume

So there are tariffs on US dairy... Maybe the US can just say well once 50 cars are shipped in from Canada we impose 300% duties. I'm not part of team Trump here or anything, but these kinds of arguments are semantics - at the end of the day neither Canada, China, the EU, or others who claim to be free-trade economies (in some sense) are really living up to the hype, whether that's outright tariffs, or complicated regulatory or policy schemes to circle around what amounts to a tax on foreign produced goods.

> This is, as the WSJ named it, the stupidest trade war in history.

Wall Street (and the WSJ) also helped move American jobs overseas. So are you aligning with corporate America's viewpoint on trade? They also want much lower corporate taxes. :)

> All for yet another distraction, as Trump's entire base just desperately need to puff their little chests and celebrate when they think he is punching down on someone. Even if it makes their lives worse and their lot worse.

I don't know that this is a distraction and it would be a mistake to dismiss these concerns out of hand as chest-pumping.

▲ footy a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Let's set the framing correctly because I think we're starting off on the wrong foot. The US is not in a desperate need of any product from Canada. Nice to have and super important? Yea. Desperate? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

aluminium, potash, and electricity are more than "nice to have"s

▲

ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

Yea but we can find other sources or just do with less if we had to just like any other country can.

Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine? Did Europe figure out a way to do without Russian products? I'm not sure why folks seem to think the US can't also figure things out if it so choses.

▲

tensor a day ago | parent | next [-]

"I'll just get it from somewhere else" means you do need it. This isn't complicated logic. You don't have enough yourself. The fact that you hope you could get it from a brutal dictatorship instead of a democratic country doesn't change the fact that you do need things Canada has.

And yes, Europe found a way off Russian gas. But they had to ration energy, hallways went cold, lighting was restricted. It was not fun. You want to ration food and heat? And for what exactly? What do you gain from it? Have fun.

▲

ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

> "I'll just get it from somewhere else" means you do need it. This isn't complicated logic.

Right, it’s not complicated logic, so follow along. I didn’t say that America didn’t need these things. I said we aren’t desperate to get them from Canada. Big difference.

> The fact that you hope you could get it from a brutal dictatorship instead of a democratic country doesn't change the fact that you do need things Canada has.

Ok, and then Canada needs things that the US has, as does the EU. Both Canada and the EU also have to get products and commodities from brutal dictatorships. This is a poor argument - what exactly are you trying to prove here?

> And yes, Europe found a way off Russian gas. But they had to ration energy, hallways went cold, lighting was restricted. It was not fun. You want to ration food and heat? And for what exactly? What do you gain from it? Have fun.

Which proves my point. We aren’t desperate - nothing like that is on the table here. You’re confusing your dislike of Trump and these tariffs for resulting conditions. We can cut off trade tomorrow with Canada and it would certainly not be ideal nor something I support, but we would just get along with life like we always do, even if it’s slightly more inconvenient and/or expensive.

▲

tensor a day ago | parent [-]

> Ok, and then Canada needs things that the US has, as does the EU. Both Canada and the EU also have to get products and commodities from brutal dictatorships. This is a poor argument - what exactly are you trying to prove here?

No, actually, we don't. If you are including "hypothetical future sources" which it seems you are, then Canada and EU can get everything they need from places other than the US. The only one thing that the US has that the world needs is GPUs, but even then maybe we could make a deal and get lesser but workable ones from China.

Also no, Canada and the EU do not generally do a lot of trade with brutal dictatorships, unless you're trying to include the US in that category. At this point I have to assume you're a troll account.

▲

ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

Ok, and then the US can get everything it needs from non Canadian or EU sources, and then we can just get maybe lay a little more or find alternative sources where needed.

> Also no, Canada and the EU do not generally do a lot of trade with brutal dictatorships,

Still do trade though, even with Russia. Hell, the EU still lets in Russian tourists, hosts their billionaires, and their children. The EU trades massively with Russia, buys oil and other products from the Middle East, and more.

> unless you're trying to include the US in that category.

Well, no, because that would be stupid lol. The US isn’t a dictatorship by any definition. I’m close-minded to any statement or opinion to the contrary.

> At this point I have to assume you're a troll account.

Every accusation is a confession.

▲

jleyank a day ago | parent | next [-]

The us is closer to a dictatorship than at any time in the recent past. Ruling by executive order is rather close to ruling by decree and neither congress or the scotus care.

	▲	ericmay 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Then that has been the case at least since the Obama years. There is a lot of truth in the failure of Congress and how it has abdicated its power to the Executive and Judicial branches but to say we are closer to a dictatorship than at any time in the recent past is like saying on a scale of 0-100 where 100 is a dictatorship we’ve moved from like a 4 to a 5.

▲

tensor a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> The EU trades massively with Russia, buys oil and other products from the Middle East, and more.

"In 2025, Russia was the EU's 19th largest trade partner, representing 1.1% of the EU’s total trade in goods with the world." - https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...

A whole 1.1% of their trade is with Russia. A "massive amount." I'll leave this fact here for others. I'm done responding to your disinformation and pro-Russian propaganda efforts.

	▲	ericmay 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> A whole 1.1% of their trade is with Russia. A "massive amount." I'll leave this fact here for others. I want the US to step up and end the war in Ukraine and kick Russia out, including US forces on the ground in Ukraine. Yea - tell me I’m “pro-Russia”. You’re right though about the numbers. My framing was wrong because I meant to write China, not Russia there. China is also a brutal dictatorship like Russia and Iran for example. But 1% is still nothing to sneeze at given that in addition to still buying oil/gas from Russia the EU hosts the oligarchs and families of Russian oligarchs within Europe. > I'm done responding to your disinformation and pro-Russian propaganda efforts. Every accusation is a confession.

▲

mikrl a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> we can find other sources or just do with less

That kind of rhetoric is typically only employed when you’re in some great struggle, and the sacrifices made are supposed to be offset by a greater good.

In this trade war the struggle was completely avoidable and you chose it for yourself. Now you’re deploying the belt tightening home front rhetoric.

I’m going to be a little naughty and stop the constructive discourse to say: HOLY MOTHER OF COPE!

	▲	ericmay a day ago \| parent [-]
		What is there to cope with? I’m not in favor of a trade war or anything, but if someone is going to claim we are desperate or make other claims that I believe to be sensationalist, wrong, or misleading I’ll just call them out. “Do this or else” always get an “else” from me, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans too. By the way, this same logic applies to Canada. Why are they increasing prices of imported goods? There isn’t any great struggle going on here or greater good. And yes before you say “we are standing up to the US” we can say “we are standing up against trade practices we find unfair (regardless of their accuracy).

▲ mthoms a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's amazing how confidently some people speak about a topic they know nothing about.

>Let's set the framing correctly because I think we're starting off on the wrong foot. The US is not in a desperate need of any product from Canada. Nice to have and super important? Yea. Desperate? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Literally yesterday:

“This country desperately needs aluminum,” Trump said. “Selfishly, we need aluminum in this country. We don’t have it. We get it all from Canada for the most part, and we need it badly.”

Note that Trump said this within hours of claiming "we don't need anything from Canada". What else does the country need that Trump has lied about (that you seem to have bought hook, line, and sinker)? Have you considered another source of information?

Well you can start with potash (very much a critical need according to the United States Ambassador to Canada), and oil (according to the US voters), electricity (according to several million American households).

That's not even to mention current and future supplies of critical minerals. Remember how much Trump panicked when China cut off critical minerals? You'd better hope that doesn't happen again.

▲ ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

Well there's layers right. If you're going to claim that we're very desperate for such things we would of course have to act as a country of desperation and secure aluminum, oil, and critical minerals perhaps at all costs. I wonder what that would look like? If we don't take desperate measures, maybe we aren't desperate yea?

But just as we don't have to take Trump at his word when he says something we disagree with, we don't have to take Trump at his word when he says something you happen to agree with. I disagree with Trump - it's better to get aluminum and other commodities from Canada, but we are not in desperate need.

▲ mthoms a day ago | parent [-]

"If I choose to adopt the most extreme definition of the word 'desperate', then I'm technically correct, and I don't have to support my assertions, or argue with facts!"

You know very well that the intended meaning of the word "desperate" in the comment you replied to isn't what you're now desperately pretending to be confused about. Stop it.

From the HN community guidelines:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

▲ ericmay 12 hours ago | parent [-]

  > From the HN community guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

If you’re going to quote these guidelines then you should at least follow them in good faith. If you believed my interpretation of the word desperate wasn’t what was intended to be communicated you or others can clarify it or ask questions instead of doubling down on what is an incorrect use of the word in this situation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desperate

There is nothing uncharitable about my interpretation of the word desperate here.

▲

mthoms 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I responding to you saying:

>If you're going to claim that we're very desperate for such things we would of course have to act as a country of desperation and secure aluminum, oil, and critical minerals perhaps at all costs. I wonder what that would look like? If we don't take desperate measures, maybe we aren't desperate yea?

Which I presume is an allusion to war ("secure... at all costs"). The implication being that since there's no war, then the phrase "desperate for oil" simply cannot apply. I only realized you were using that extreme interpretation when you... you know... alluded to war(!) At which time I pointed it out.

But go ahead Eric, carry on with your desperate[0] flailing.

[0] So there's no confusion, the intended meaning here is this one (from your source):

ˈde-sp(ə-)rət: "involving or employing extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat or frustration"

	▲	ericmay 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Instead of doubling down you should just admit that you should have backtracked from the usage of the term desperate here. It's not a big deal but you're making it into one to the extent any Internet comment can be. It's a bit of an annoyance that you are sitting here quoting the rules around charitable interpretation and then you turn around and cite the definition of desperation which was how I was using it and start calling that an "extreme interpretation". Nobody is casually desperate. I'll leave you here to mull it over as I demonstrated my point, unequivocally, to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of others.

▲ llm_nerd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> The US is not in a desperate need of any product from Canada. Nice to have and super important? Yea. Desperate? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The US oil stockpile is rapidly declining, it is desperately buying up bonds to try to prop up the market ($40T debt, deficit spiralling, and now your orange goblin is talking about using the military to prop up the bond market...which good God), and now Vance is running around trying to make lemonade out of lemons and talking up how no longer being the reserve currency is a great thing. Utter idiocracy.

Canada needs absolutely nothing from the US.

> I'm not part of team Trump here or anything, but these kinds of arguments are semantics

It isn't semantics when $0 in tariffs were applied. What an utterly stupid argument. And this was all precisely negotiated into USMCA -- you know, the trade deal that your hero called the best trade deal ever -- for which we gave concessions.

Trump takes advantage of his base being catastrophically stupid and misinformed, and what a case in point.

>I don't know that this is a distraction

It is 100% a distraction, for a monumentally stupid base.

Personally I want USMCA torn up, as a Canadian. Loads of Americans are catastrophically stupid -- the most impossibly misinformed group of people on this planet -- about how privileged you have been, and what you have to lose.

▲ ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

> It isn't semantics when $0 in tariffs were applied.

> There have been $0 in tariffs on US dairy. The tariffs only come into play when the US imports pass a certain volume

So how do tariffs come in to play if there are no tariffs applied?

> You clearly are.

> you know, the trade deal that your hero

You're welcome to read my entire comment history. You will find I routinely have said Donald Trump belongs in jail. You can choose to believe I'm a Trump supporter for whatever reason, if you'd like, but I can only tell you that I'm not except in circumstances where his actions create good things for the United States or if his policies (or anyone's) align with mine. I make the decision and then others align or don't. I'm better characterized as anti-populist and anti-populist movements including MAGA, DSA, and others where applicable, and then also anti bad arguments.

▲ llm_nerd a day ago | parent [-]

> So how do tariffs come in to play if there are no tariffs applied?

What is the duty you pay on duty free goods?

Is this a serious question?

Canada negotiated in a quota of dairy products the US could export to Canada tariff free. If the US exceeds this quota, there are tariffs. If it doesn't, there are none. It has never even come close to hitting the quota, much less exceeding it, and the total tariffs ever paid on this has been $0.

Again, this is all a part of a massively complex trade agreements where every agreement had a give and take.

Exactly the same system applies in reverse. Canadian dairy isn't putting US farmers out of business, because there are basically zero exports to the US of dairy products.

The fact that Trump constantly returns to dairy betrays just how fundamentally broken the US is now.

As an aside, saw Lutnick -- that disgusting greaseball Epstein island visitor, as the entire admin are scumbags and pedophiles -- on the news the other day declaring that the only reason there are auto plants in Canada is to evade unions. Canada has 3x the union rate than the US, better worker protections, better vacation and holiday and sick and health and environmental protections, and so on. Why is he willing to just LIE so egregiously? Because America has become the stupidest fucking country on the planet, and your Pedo Leaders can just do this endlessly and you'll eat it up and repeat the stupid nonsense verbatim. What an embarrassment.

▲ ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

> Canada negotiated in a quota of dairy products the US could export to Canada tariff free. If the US exceeds this quota, there are tariffs. If it doesn't, there are none. It has never even come close to hitting the quota, much less exceeding it, and the total tariffs ever paid on this has been $0.

So you wouldn't take issue with an America quota on assembled motor vehicles, for example, since that wouldn't be a tariff? Maybe that automaker moves most of its facilities back to the US and now yea you've got one factory making 10,000 cars/year or something and that's under the quota, but you were effectively tariffed anyway because to maintain facilities would breach the quota that was set. Were you outright tariffed? No. Were you effectively tariffed? Absolutely.

That's why this argument you are putting forth is just semantics. It's not tariffs on duty free goods (except when it is). It's not tariffs on imported products (except when it is). There aren't any restrictions, except when there are. Nobody is moving facilities until they do.

Other countries do the same thing to protect their domestic industries, I'm not singling Canada out here, but I do take issue with the lack of honesty where folks pretend that we had these free trade schemes without any barriers right up until Trump got elected again. It's simply untrue.

▲ rjrjrjrj a day ago | parent | next [-]

> I do take issue with the lack of honesty where folks pretend that we had these free trade schemes without any barriers right up until Trump got elected again. It's simply untrue.

Which folks are these? The original Canada/US free trade agreement was negotiated in the 1980s. It was never a "free trade scheme without any barriers" and I don't recall anyone ever describing it as such. There have always been exemptions, quotas, and points of contention on both sides. Softwood lumber has been in the news for decades, for example.

Your issue with a lack of honesty seems misplaced. Surely you should be more concerned that the White House is occupied by a pathological liar who has surrounded himself with pathological liars, and consequently the US as a whole has a massive global credibility problem?

▲ llm_nerd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

>So you wouldn't take issue with an America quota on assembled motor vehicles, for example, since that wouldn't be a tariff? Maybe that automaker moves most of its facilities back to the US and now yea you've got one factory making 10,000 cars/year or something and that's under the quota, but you were effectively tariffed anyway because to maintain facilities would breach the quota that was set. Were you outright tariffed? No. Were you effectively tariffed? Absolutely.

You've returned to this example twice now. And it's interesting. Did you know Canada imports and buys more vehicles from the US than we export to the US? Or at least it did before this incredibly stupid, self-destructive trade war.

Did you know that prior to NAFTA cum USMCA it was the reverse? Like literally, this is one of those amazing punch yourself in the face moments.

But sure, if this was negotiated into a trade deal where we made compromises and both sides understood and agreed, sure thing. We'll cut off American vehicles just the same. I mean, America's automakers sure are shitting their pants about Canada importing a tiny number of Chinese cars, which is kind of funny. Again, Canada compromised in both NAFTA, and redoubled in USMCA, because of our dairy system. Now your rapist goblin gets his ill-informed clownshow enraged about something we've given in for twice.

Again, tear up USMCA. Close the border, effectively. I am 100% onboard. I absolutely, positively do not want the government to give a fucking iota, even if there is short term damage from it.

▲ ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

> You've returned to this example twice now. And it's interesting. Did you know Canada imports and buys more vehicles from the US than we export to the US?

So what? We could still enact a quota on imports regardless of exports. If anything that would be ideal (ask China, Germany) in some ways. But you can just substitute autos for any other random product - the specific product is, as I know you are well aware, isn't the point.

▲ llm_nerd a day ago | parent [-]

> So what?

You specifically chose a thing that Trump has tried to use as a lever multiple times. Again, I want 100% of vehicle production from the US barred from Canada. A 0 vehicle quota. Let the US automakers collapse into the eventual failure that is coming.

> We could still enact a quota on imports regardless of exports.

Huh? What does this even mean. When there are two parties to an agreement. If the US did that, we'd do it in return. I mean, we did (to yield hysterical tantrums by the criminal empire). Just as the dairy agreement goes both ways.

"But Canada's market is small and we're big and only we matter" - I mean, 40 million affluent buyers is a huge market, and much, much smaller markets do well. We'll just block all US vehicles and we'll serve ourselves. It'll be disruptive and people desperate for the status quo will fear monger, but so be it. New world order.

And it's hysterical how Americans desperately want everyone to believe that Canada's market is too small to matter. It sure as shit matters to your automakers, who have been creaming their diapers at every disruption.

▲ ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

US automakers wouldn't collapse if Canadiens weren't buying American cars. Canada is too small of a market. On the other hand Canada would lose a lot of jobs. It also wouldn't apply to just American auto manufacturers. Japanese and German manufacturers I imagine ship cars to Canada too so you wouldn't get those either.

> Huh? What does this even mean.

Well we would enact a quota on imports, and then we'd be free to export. Certainly we wouldn't self-impose export controls on products we want to sell. Canada could then choose to add more tariffs or just stop imports but that's a separate step.

▲ tensor a day ago | parent [-]

Maybe you haven't noticed the world turning against you. Canada is forming trade agreements rapidly with other countries. We can get cars from anywhere in the world. You, on the other hand, would only be able to get cars from yourself. If you ban imports other countries will ban your exports. Isolationism is a losing philosophy. The best and wealthiest nations are the ones that do the most trade, not the least.

▲ ericmay a day ago | parent [-]

No the world isn’t turning against the US, just people in the internet who like to think it is.

Canada is forming trade agreements, the US is forming its own as well as we routinely do, including I’m sure a future one with Canada, and we can get cars for ourselves (we don’t need to import) or import them at will. For autos the US manufacturers are primarily domestic anyway so we have way more leverage than anyone else there. That’s partly why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, and more build cars in the US. Those markets (China too) are much more export dependent than we are.

> If you ban imports other countries will ban your exports.

To some degree but the US hasn’t really been banning imports though with some exceptions like Chinese automobiles but Europe will be doing that too.

▲ llm_nerd a day ago | parent [-]

At this point I assume this is all an act. Like some sort of parody. Because there is simply no way.

>No the world isn’t turning against the US, just people in the internet who like to think it is.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many...

Yes, most of the world thinks you're a busted idiocracy. I mean, people view China more positively. In the Iran debacle, where the US got its ass handed to it by some two-bit theocracy, absolutely no one was rooting for the US but Israel. If 9/11 happened today, I'm going to be honest with you: Most of the world would go "Eh, sucks, but not surprising".

You are a hated nation. You haven't felt the consequences yet because inertia is a hell of a thing, and decades of trade and military relationships take time to unwind. But if you, like so many Americans, live under the profound denial that your future has become much, much darker, you need to wake up.

>but Europe will be doing that too.

LOL, what? Europe sure as shit isn't banning Chinese autos. Everyone is transitioning from the US to China. Except your little war-criming buddy Israel, or your hysterically pathetic "Board of Peace". I mean, good god, what a shameful debacle. What an absolutely giant shit this farcical idiocracy movement is taking on the great Americans in the past that put it in the position where it is now flushing down the toilet.

As an aside, it's hilarious seeing you talking about cars. Notice not a word is being dropped about vastly more cars made in Mexico, which are going absolutely nowhere. This never had anything to do with bringing manufacturing "back" to the US, however many cosmically stupid idiots fell for that line.

▲ ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think this is a completely crazy, over-sensationalized view and all you are doing is whipping yourself up into a fantasy about how much most people care about this stuff. Who cares what Pew Research "researched"?

> I mean, people view China more positively.

For now lol. Germany is shedding 10,000 manufacturing jobs/month [1] due to Chinese competition. And China hasn't tried to invade Taiwan yet. Oh and of course they're supporting Russia outright in the war against Ukraine - somehow folks conveniently keep forgetting that.

> LOL, what? Europe sure as shit isn't banning Chinese autos.

They may not ban them outright but they'll tariff them. How long do you think the EU is going to put up with this?

  [1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/china-is-devastating-the-last-stronghold-of-german-industry-c7a98514

  [2] https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/chinese-export-flood-tests-europes-stomach-for-trade-war-with-beijing-c03a9ac1?mod=article_inline

  [3] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/german-state-politician-calls-eu-tariffs-chinese-hybrid-cars-letter-shows-2026-08-21/

  [4] https://eletric-vehicles.com/general/eu-prepares-to-extend-tariffs-on-china-made-vehicles-to-phevs-report/

> In the Iran debacle, where the US got its ass handed to it by some two-bit theocracy, absolutely no one was rooting for the US but Israel.

? We bombed their nuclear sites, destroyed a lot of their military equipment, killed their leaders, and now we're blockading them and crushing their economy. [5]

Israel alone rocked Hamas and Hezbollah and killed their scumbag Hitler wannabes.

  [5] https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/labor-protests-and-panic-buying-signal-growing-pressure-in-iran-3f039fab?st=3C4UhN&reflink=article_imessage_share

> Yes, most of the world thinks you're a busted idiocracy.

Well if we're idiots that must be embarrassing for everyone else to be constantly getting beaten by idiots lol.

	▲	llm_nerd 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ROFL. Christ. Alright, buddy. Hey, your child-diddler rapist just renamed something! Yay! WINNING!