> No, that's the point, they're not.

Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see?

> Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless.

Ok our word is worthless and all that stuff so who cares then what anyone in Europe or whatever thinks.

Oh well so sad we should withdraw from NATO immediately, send troops back to the US, and remove sanctions on Russia so we can bring down gas prices - who cares what Europe thinks since our word is worthless and all.

Guess we'll just have to keep doing whatever we're doing.

▲

ben_w 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see?

I wrote "Those trade deals aren't worth the paper they're written on", you seem to be responding as if I wrote "nonexistent".

> Oh well so sad we should withdraw from NATO immediately, send troops back to the US, and remove sanctions on Russia so we can bring down gas prices - who cares what Europe thinks since our word is worthless and all.

Those troops are in Europe for your benefit, more than ours. Those bases are a big part of how the USA gets to do force projection.

Can you really not see the cost to yourself? Your reaction is like committing suicide after getting caught cheating. You're not coming back from cheating, but if you really, genuinely, seriously, cannot see how much worse it can get… wow, things are going to get so much worse.

	▲	ericmay 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I wrote "Those trade deals aren't worth the paper they're written on", you seem to be responding as if I wrote "nonexistent". That's just your opinion though. I say they're worth the paper they're written on, and other countries have agreed to them and are following them. That's my opinion, and the opinion of the countries who have signed and are following trade deals. So it's like, me, America, the countries we've done trade deals with and then there's you who disagree with all of us. > Those troops are in Europe for your benefit, more than ours. Those bases are how you get to do force projection. This is cope. Certainly those bases do benefit the United States, but it's not as lopsided as you are making it out to be. If the US turned to be more isolationist (not something I advocate really) we wouldn't need those bases to, say, project power in the Middle East or provide a backstop to Europe due to Russia. And we know this is true because when the United States under Trump has threatened or started to remove troops, the NATO alliance and European leaders either treaded carefully, or made overtures to keep the troops/bases operational in Europe. I don't know why people keep parroting these talking points - they really don't make a lot of sense. Like if you are going to claim those bases are just there for our benefit, then why do you care if we remove them? Leave us alone and let us make our own choices. > Can you really not see the cost to yourself? Your reaction is like committing suicide after getting caught cheating. You're not coming back from cheating, but if you really, genuinely, seriously, cannot see how much worse it can get… wow. Sure, I see the cost. The degradation of these relationships is not something I advocate for. But if you're saying everything is done and over, untrustworthy, &c. then sure it's over - it's just like you said and want. So why do you keep trying?

▲

rjrjrjrj 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see?

Are there any actual formal trade agreements, ratified by Congress (like CUSMA)?

Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an executive with a long history of dishonesty, reneging on deals, and criminality.

▲

ericmay 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an executive with a long history of dishonesty, reneging on deals, and criminality.

Fair but then that criticism goes back pretty far and is bipartisan. I don't think it's fair to single Trump out for this. Congress (Republicans and Democrats both) have been abdicating their responsibility and deferring to the courts or the Executive for over 20 years and it gets worse every year.

▲

rjrjrjrj 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course it is fair to single out Trump. No other president has pursued this strategy. In the case of Canada, there was the original free trade agreement (Reagan), NAFTA (Bush I/Clinton), and even CUSMA (Trump I). All approved by Congress.

They didn't implement illegal tariffs, make up fake emergencies (eg fentanyl across the northern border), and do the 51st state/Governor Trudeau stuff.

More broadly, the "he is just doing what his predecessors did" argument that Trump water carriers like to make is a Lake Ontario-sized false equivalence.

▲

ericmay 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Are there any actual formal trade agreements, ratified by Congress (like CUSMA)?

> In the case of Canada, there was the original free trade agreement (Reagan), NAFTA (Bush I/Clinton), and even CUSMA (Trump I). All approved by Congress.

Why bother asking me questions like this if you know the answer?

The legality of the tariffs is questionable but just calling them illegal as though it's a moral judgement I cast out as nonsense and not worthy of discussion.

None of these points detract from what I wrote which is that Congress under both Republicans and Democrats have continued to be dysfunctional and delegate more and more of their responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches.

▲

rjrjrjrj 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why bother asking me questions like this if you know the answer?

I know the history of the Canadian treaties. I don't know the status of all the other various frameworks and intents and executive orders with other countries that have been tweeted about, agreed to and then un-agreed to, etc. Maybe I missed some that Congress approved, but they mostly seem to be like peace agreements with Iran.

> The legality of the tariffs is questionable but just calling them illegal as though it's a moral judgement I cast out as nonsense and not worthy of discussion.

The more recent ones are questionable. The Supreme Court ruled the "liberation day" tariffs illegal. That's why they're being refunded.

> None of these points detract from what I wrote which is that Congress under both Republicans and Democrats have continued to be dysfunctional and delegate more and more of their responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches.

Under this administration, it is a LOT more. A LOT LOT more.

▲

ericmay 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't know the status of all the other various frameworks and intents and executive orders with other countries

Then why did you assert claims without knowledge about the underlying facts? Delete Twitter, get off social media, and you'll be much better informed.

> They seem to be like peace agreements with Iran.

I'm not sure that's a good comparison because the Iranians never had any intention of an agreement. Even today hardliners and the IRGC have internal fighting with other members of the Iranian government as to what to do about the US closing the Strait on them. Hard to negotiate when the party you are negotiating with either doesn't want to negotiate or can't agree on whatever their talking points are.

> Under this administration, it is a LOT more. A LOT LOT more.

Maybe but I don't think the volume makes a significant difference. It's just further evidence of the dysfunction of Congress and it'll just get worse once the Republicans deservedly get blown out in the midterm elections.

▲

rjrjrjrj 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Assert claims? I know a lot of the deals are vague/incomplete executive directives; not treaties ratified by congress. But I don't know about all of them - maybe Congress approved a deal with the penguins that Trump tariffed? So I asked you a question (which you didn't answer).

Don't take the comparison with Iran too literally; it was a gibe about yet another in an endless line of Trump deals (political, business, personal) that didn't stick.

▲

ericmay 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Don't take the comparison with Iran too literally; it was a gibe about yet another in an endless line of Trump deals (political, business, personal) that didn't stick.

Sure but you used the comparison so I did want to make sure that if we were taking a serious tone we have to realize they aren't honest negotiators anyway and there's a lot of in-fighting.

> I know a lot of the deals are vague/incomplete executive directives; not treaties ratified by congress.

How do you know that? What do you mean by an incomplete executive directive? Are you sure that all trade deals or modifications of such deals must go through Congress? How familiar are you with the US legislative system?

> So I asked you a question (which you didn't answer).

Was it a rhetorical question or are you genuinely asking? You already answered your question by pointing out a few different deals. That's why I'm a little confused. I addressed your question, even if I didn't answer it... because you answered it!! lol

Separately does it matter? My point was that Congress has abdicated this responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches and this has gone on for decades and only gotten worse over time. The lack of Congressional approval for trade deals would just reinforce the point I am making.

	▲	rjrjrjrj 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Agreements approved by Congress are more politically and legally durable than something simply signed by the executive. Especially when the executive is as dishonest and capricious as this one is. CUSMA was approved by Congress in the middle of Trump's second term. In this area at least, they haven't been abdicating for decades. Also, seems primary blame for Trump's illegal tariffs should lie with... Trump?