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 10 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 9 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 9 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 8 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 8 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 5 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?