Trump cancels trade negoitations with Canada after a provincial government releases an ad featuring Ronald Reagan

[wing2000]

The "FAKE" ad released by Ontario:

 

[GoldenBoy89]

And people thought a woman would be too emotional to be president.

 

[wing2000]

And people thought a woman would be too emotional to be president.

....Donald is obviously in a fragile state of mind after all the criticism of his demolition of the East Wing.

 

[That Guy 11200]

....Donald is obviously in a fragile state of mind after all the criticism of his demolition of the East Wing.

He should release the Epstein files to distract people from it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Here's Reagan's full address. They did chop it up a bit, but I think that the general meaning is retained:

Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade

042587a

www.reaganlibrary.gov

 

[Yarddog]

Here's Reagan's full address. They did chop it up a bit, but I think that the general meaning is retained:

Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade

042587a

www.reaganlibrary.gov

Yes, and it's hypocritical to complain about Canada altering Reagan's speech when Republicans do the same, with opponent's speeches.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

What ever happened with the 200 trade deals we were supposed to have by now?

 

[eleos1954]

Aftermath

• Ontario pulled the ad by October 24 after backlash, with Ford defending it as promoting alliance: "Canada and the United States are friends... President Ronald Reagan knew that we are stronger together."
• Carney expressed readiness to resume talks, calling prior progress "constructive."
• Critics in Canada decried the $75M spend as wasteful amid provincial debt exceeding $400 billion, while U.S. outlets highlighted it as provocative diplomacy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So now Ronald Reagan is super smart and had a handle on economics? He's the "trickle-down" guy right?

Do the fine people of Ontario (where my dad's side of the family is from and some still live) really want "Reaganomics" lol?

See, this is where there are communication breakdowns... I spent a substantial portion of the past two decades hearing people crap all over Reagan for his economic policies that favored the wealthy and the business owners, but now when there's an opportunity to highlight a policy divergence between him and Trump, it's time to start invoking "the wisdom of Reagan"?

While we're invoking Reagan, how about we say that Ketchup and Relish should be counted as vegetables in order cut school lunch funding to meat federal nutritional guidelines more cheaply?

This is where the "Trump derangement syndrome" accusations come from, where people will cite politicians whose policies they absolutely abhor, simply because they think it gives them a "slam dunk" against a current politician they hate.


If they want to call Canada's bluff...sure, we'll make sure our next president is exactly like Ronald Reagan lol

They can tell protestors "awww shut up" to the applause of a bunch of old stuffy white guys"...things will be so much different

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So now Ronald Reagan is super smart and had a handle on economics? He's the "trickle-down" guy right?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I knew that was fake and AI back in the 80s.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I guess I don't understand the point of citing someone else (who's policies they also despised) to throw in the face of a current political rival.

If you recall (perhaps not, I happen to due to hearing about it from my Canadian relatives back in the day), Regan was no terribly well-liked among Canadians. His presidency overlapped with Justin Trudeau's father (Pierre's) time as Prime Minister. Their relationship was notably chilly.

There was actually some protesting that took place north of the border, calling for peace because they felt Reagan's cold war posturing toward Russia was increasing the nuclear threat (which they obviously had a vested interest in given they were sort wedged in between us and the USSR)

Reagan's anti-tariff position and free trade agreement proposals were something that Pierre Trudeau (and his party) were very skeptical of. Organized labor in Canada favored protectionism at the time.

Canada didn't start to warm up to the idea of free trade agreements until Clinton was in office (and even then, it was barely over half that supported it). It'd been on a steady downward decline all throughout the 80's and first part of the 90's.

So that's why I'm pointing out that it's a tad bit absurd for Ontario's government to be putting out things like this.

Basically, bashing Trump for not doing more of the things they hated about Reagan (free trade and tough posturing on Russia)

So with regards to our neighbors to the North, are they wrong now, or were they wrong back then?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I guess I don't understand the point of citing someone else (who's policies they also despised) to throw in the face of a current political rival.

You've never thrown the words of someone who the person you're arguing with would generally agree with back at them when it suits your point?

Canada didn't start to warm up to the idea of free trade agreements until Clinton was in office (and even then, it was barely over half that supported it). It'd been on a steady downward decline all throughout the 80's and first part of the 90's.

So that's why I'm pointing out that it's a tad bit absurd for Ontario's government to be putting out things like this.

Why is it absurd for a government to change their position on trade over the course of 40 years?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You've never thrown the words of someone who the person you're arguing with would generally agree with back at them when it suits your point?

I try to avoid that when I can, and I'd try doubly hard if I were in charge of a state or provincial government.

Why is it absurd for a government to change their position on trade over the course of 40 years?

If the only reason they're changing said position is to oppose an American president they don't like, then that's pretty ridiculous.


I'd be like Ron DeSantis invoking something FDR said back in the day to win a political bickering match to "own the Dems"

The understandable response to that would be "Well, Ron...are you going to be doing any of the other FDR stuff or planning to follow his lead on a bunch of other issues?...No?...then why are you even bringing him up?"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

and I'd try doubly hard if I were in charge of a state or provincial government.

What does that have to do with anything?

If the only reason they're changing said position is to oppose an American president they don't like, then that's pretty ridiculous.

Fortunately, as you've already pointed out, that's not the case. Unless you've come from some alternate reality where Trump was president in the '90s?

I'd be like Ron DeSantis invoking something FDR said back in the day to win a political bickering match to "own the Dems"

The understandable response to that would be "Well, Ron...are you going to be doing any of the other FDR stuff or planning to follow his lead on a bunch of other issues?...No?...then why are you even bringing him up?"

Why would that be the "understandable response"? If it's something that the Democratic Party no longer supports, then the understandable response would be to say "We don't support that policy anymore."

Suffice to say that it's possible to agree with someone on one thing without agreeing with their entire policy position. Right? Haven't you been on a kick about the problems with "purity tests" recently?

The "correct" response from Trump and the Republican Party to this would be to say, "Gee, that's great Rob (Ford). But Reagan was wrong about tariffs." Instead, we get this unhinged rant and tantrum from Trump and Republicans losing their minds about how this is somehow "misrepresenting Reagan."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What does that have to do with anything?

Because if I was an elected member of government, I'd try to hold myself to a higher standard than the way I conduct myself on a 90k member message board lol.

Fortunately, as you've already pointed out, that's not the case. Unless you've come from some alternate reality where Trump was president in the '90s?

As the chart I provided showed, even under Clinton, the popularity of those things was barely over half of the their country.

55% doesn't exactly equate to a "mandate from the people"

Why would that be the "understandable response"? If it's something that the Democratic Party no longer supports, then the understandable response would be to say "We don't support that policy anymore."

Suffice to say that it's possible to agree with someone on one thing without agreeing with their entire policy position. Right? Haven't you been on a kick about the problems with "purity tests" recently?

So they couldn't have found anyone else besides Reagan to quote for that purpose?

Seems like they were trying to formulate their own "own the conservs" sort of thing.

"We know American Republicans loved Reagan, and we know they currently love Trump...let's hit them with a contradiction between the two and let's see how they handle that one!"

We can't pretend that it wasn't a very specific choice they made on that one aimed at creating a "gotcha" situation.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Because if I was an elected member of government, I'd try to hold myself to a higher standard than the way I conduct myself on a 90k member message board lol.

Not sure how this qualifies as "lowering standards." It's a political ad intended to strike a nerve, and it did so (very effectively, it seems) in a completely clean and non-insulting manner.

As the chart I provided showed, even under Clinton, the popularity of those things was barely over half of the their country.

That chart ends in 1996. Shocking as it is, that was 30 years ago. Face it; we're old now.

Seems like they were trying to formulate their own "own the conservs" sort of thing.

"We know American Republicans loved Reagan, and we know they currently love Trump...let's hit them with a contradiction between the two and let's see how they handle that one!"

We can't pretend that it wasn't a very specific choice they made on that one aimed at creating a "gotcha" situation.

Has anyone said otherwise?

Remember, we started this with your claim that agreeing with Reagan on one thing must mean that people agree with his entire economic policy. Now you're trying to turn it into some kind of argument about "standards".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Has anyone said otherwise?

Remember, we started this with your claim that agreeing with Reagan on one thing must mean that people agree with his entire economic policy. Now you're trying to turn it into some kind of argument about "standards".

It is about standards...

I'm sure I have a few random policy preference overlaps with AOC on one or two things, if I representing a state or provincial government, using that purely as a means of "throwing it in someone else's face", that'd be a low-class move for a politician.

The government of Ontario could've found an example of someone who opposed tariffs AND had a high level of overlap with their current policy preferences if they were looking to make a point, yes?

This is counterproductive part of "owning the other side" politics.

And I'll be fair and pick on the conservative side too...they're doing it as well.

Look at this article that just got posted in the last 24 hours:

Sanders praises Trump, slams Biden on border: ‘You’ve got to have borders, period’

Sen. Bernie Sanders said Trump “did a better job" than Biden on the border during a podcast, breaking with Democrats and calling for a secure border “period."

www.foxnews.com

All of the sudden Fox News and the GOP care about Bernie's opinion on political matters? lol...get real, it's just a political hatchet job.

"Well even Bernie says nations need to have strong immigration policies and strong borders" (coming from the right)
is no different (in spirit) than
"Even Reagan said tariffs are bad" (coming from the left)


I'd have more respect for someone if they just said "I hate Trump -- He's a bad orange man who's bad and orange and a man who's also orange and bad, whatever he wants, I want the opposite simply for the sake of opposing him"...at least they're being honest. It's easier to have a substantive debate against a person with a more frank position like that, than a person who shifts between personal bias and principle, ad-hoc, depending on the situation.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The government of Ontario could've found an example of someone who opposed tariffs AND had a high level of overlap with their current policy preferences if they were looking to make a point, yes?

Remember, the purpose of a political ad (the real purpose) is fundamentally to change people's minds. If Canada is trying to change people's minds about US tariff policy, who are they going to be reaching out to? Obviously, people who support the current policy and the President - in other words, Republicans. If you're trying to reach out to a group that, in general, tends to idolize Reagan, then using Reagan as a "spokesman" makes a whole lot of sense. Who would you suggest they use instead?

"Well even Bernie says nations need to have strong immigration policies and strong borders" (coming from the right)
is no different (in spirit) than
"Even Reagan said tariffs are bad" (coming from the left)

I agree - the difference is that I don't see a problem with that. It's unlikely to change my mind about anything, but I can recognize that there are some commonalities between Bernie and Trump when it comes to border policy, and I don't begrudge anyone pointing that out.

 

[wing2000]

If they want to call Canada's bluff...sure, we'll make sure our next president is exactly like Ronald Reagan lol

I guess I don't understand the point of citing someone else (who's policies they also despised) to throw in the face of a current political rival.

Reagan's free trade policies were the fore runner of NAFTA (1994) and Trump's USMCA (2020). I doubt most Canadians despise those agreements.

IMO, it's only fair that Canada call out the US for breaking it's agreements.