Can Mexico's Crime Crackdown Satisfy Trump's Demands?
Category: News & Politics
Via: tacos • one week ago • 97 commentsBy: Victoria Dittmar, Parker Asmann (InSight Crime)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Authorities in Mexico have carried out a series of unprecedented security operations in a crackdown on the country's top criminal groups as the threat of US tariffs looms. But the bigger question remains: Will these efforts be enough to placate the Trump administration and stabilize bilateral security cooperation?
The historic crackdown culminated February 27, when Mexican authorities handed over 29 criminal leaders to the United States in an unprecedented move to face organized crime-related charges. US Attorney General Pamela Bondi said that the Mexican government agreed to move forward with the historic transfer after the United States designated several of Mexico's crime groups as foreign terrorist organizations, rather than going through the usual court proceedings associated with extradition requests.
SEE ALSO: What You Need to Know About the Criminal Groups the US Just Labeled 'Terrorists'
Among those sent were some of Mexico's most infamous drug traffickers that led the consolidation of various transnational criminal organizations still operating today. These included former Guadalajara Cartel leader and later Sinaloa Cartel associate Rafael Caro Quintero; former Zetas leaders Miguel and Omar Trevino Morales; Vicente Carrillo, alias "El Viceroy," from the Juarez Cartel; Erick Valencia, one of the founders of the Jalisco Cartel New Generation (Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion - CJNG); and Jose Jesus Mendez Vargas, alias "El Chango," who was once a prominent leader of the Familia Michoacana.
Mexico's Public Security Minister Omar Garcia Harfuch stated in a post on X that the transfer of these prisoners, in collaboration with the US Department of Justice, was a sign that "coordination and reciprocity, when carried out with respect for sovereignty, lead to good results."
The transfers came as US and Mexican officials conducted high-level negotiations in Washington, DC, aimed at reaching an agreement with the Trump administration, who has threatened to impose 25% tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, if the country did not take more aggressive measures to counter the flow of fentanyl and migrants.
Mexico's Crackdown
Since Trump's initial tariff threat on February 1, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has responded with a series of similar high-profile security actions to signal her commitment to combating organized crime. She initially secured a one-month delay on the tariffs, in part by deploying 10,000 national guard troops to the US-Mexico border ostensibly to crack down on drug trafficking and migrant smuggling.
Sheinbaum also launched a massive anti-fentanyl campaign targeting schools, with advertisements saturating major cities and radio stations - a move that won Trump's public approval as a "great idea."
(New warnings show the Mexican government's new campaign to fight fentanyl consumption in Mexico City. Photo: Victoria Dittmar)
Most importantly, perhaps, Mexican authorities have prioritized key arrests. Days before the February high-level negotiations in Washington, DC, armed forces captured two top security chiefs allegedly responsible for protecting Ivan Archivaldo Guzman, a leader of the Chapitos faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, which US officials have repeatedly described as one of the main criminal organizations behind the fentanyl crisis.
The following week, the Mexican government formally extradited three other members of prominent criminal organizations to the United States, including Jesus Ricardo Patron Sanchez, alias "H3," from the H-2 Cartel - a splinter group of the Beltran Leyva Organization (BLO) - Daniel Franco Lopez, alias "Micha," from the Sinaloa Cartel; and Omar Cuenca Merino, an alleged leader of the Rojos.
And in previous weeks, authorities arrested financial and logistical operators of the Chapitos, including alias "El Jando," who was reportedly involved in two separate attempts to free Ovidio Guzman Lopez - another Chapitos leader - from authorities in 2019 and 2023, when he was ultimately captured.
In parallel, security forces have dismantled dozens of clandestine drug labs in and around Culiacan, Sinaloa, the Chapitos' stronghold and arguably the epicenter of synthetic drug production in Mexico. Authorities also have reportedly seized more than one ton of illicit fentanyl.
The crackdown may be having an impact. The New York Times, citing interviews with criminal operatives, reported parts of the Sinaloa Cartel were laying off employees and going into hiding.
And while Sheinbaum initially took combative tone with the US administration, she acknowledged during a February 19 press conference that the recent increase in US drone surveillance over Mexican territory to collect intelligence on criminal groups was part of ongoing bilateral security cooperation.
These actions mark a significant shift from the years of sporadic, often anemic, efforts to fight organized crime, epitomized by former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's famous tagline for his security strategy: abrazos no balazos (hugs not bullets).
Under Lopez Obrador, bilateral security cooperation stalled. The Mexican government restricted the ability of US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents to operate in the country and routinely criticized long-standing issues with the agency's foreign operations, especially its work with controversial Sensitive Investigative Units (SIU) that have since been disbanded in the country. Lopez Obrador also repeatedly dismissed Mexico's role in the fentanyl trade, framing it as a US problem and denying the existence of any illicit production within the country.
Can Trump Be Placated?
Despite what appears to be a good faith effort to strike at the core of some of the country's most sprawling criminal networks, Sheinbaum's efforts may not satisfy Trump. In fact, in recent days, the US president has reiterated his threat to impose tariffs starting March 4.
US diplomats are also hedging with their famously unpredictable leader. During the February 27 bilateral meetings, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio "expressed appreciation" for Mexico's security measures. But in a previous interview, he stressed that the US government was still expecting their counterparts to "do more" and make sure their current efforts "are enduring."
Ironically, the rift risks completely upending major parts of the anti-crime fight. To begin with, it would walk back what has recently become a successful collaboration and intelligence sharing between the United States and Mexico after the often combative relationship under Lopez Obrador.
The US military's Northern Command, for example, announced on February 19 that it had come to a new understanding with its Mexican counterparts for "increased information sharing" and "immediate communications." And Mexico's defense secretary, Ricardo Trevilla Trejo, said this type of cooperation played a key role in the recent arrests of several top members of the Chapitos in Culiacan.
However, violence is still raging across Sinaloa, and experts told InSight Crime that any future advances may be at risk if Trump follows through with the tariffs, or even if he delays them but keeps that threat on the table long-term.
SEE ALSO: Why Trump's Tariffs Won't Slow the Flow of Migrants or Fentanyl From Mexico
"If the US government makes these impossible demands that can never be met and moves forward with the tariffs on Mexico, then what incentive is there to work with the United States if they're going to get punished anyway," said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior investigator at the Brookings Institution.
"The more important thing is to establish patterns of cooperation that would be effective and lasting," Felbab-Brown told InSight Crime. "But that can all be erased if the goal is impossible or Mexico's compliance is viewed as insufficient."
'High-Profile' Results
So far, threats of tariffs and other heavy-handed measures, including potential US military action, have pushed the Mexican government to deliver immediate, "high-profile results," said Paloma Mendoza, a researcher at the Center for Security, Intelligence, and Governance Studies at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico - ITAM).
"Rarely in recent history have we seen a similar sequence [of seizures and arrests] by security institutions," Mendoza told InSight Crime.
But while these types of spectacular actions are symbolic, they come at a steep cost. More than 800 people have already been killed since the conflict in Sinaloa kicked off in September 2024 following the highly contentious US arrest of Ismael Zambada Garcia, alias "El Mayo," according to official data.
And some of Sheinbaum's responses to Trump have already put pressure on the country's 2025 approved budget. The campaign against fentanyl, for example, has consumed at least 5% of the education budget, according to data obtained by El Sol de Mexico.
Still, the back-and-forth between both countries, fueled by Trump's economic pressure and alienating narrative, is likely to continue throughout his presidency, according to Yadira Galvez, a professor of international relations at Mexico's National Autonomous University (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico - UNAM).
And whether this can be sustained over time or prove effective in the long run remains to be seen.
"Mexico's response can no longer be merely reactive. Both countries need to reach sustainable agreements that take their respective priorities into account," Galvez told InSight Crime.
Featured image: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and US President Donald Trump. Credit: InSight Crime.
Don’t be a dick.
Tags
Who is online
68 visitors
Whatever the reason, I am glad to see Mexico cracking down on the cartels. They are apparently making genuine progress. That can only be good news, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on.
Were tariffs - or the threat of them - necessary? I think that’s an open question. President Sheinbaum campaigned on a promise to take on the cartels, so she seemed prepared to break the mold of Mexico’s bullshit claim of doing all they could all these years. I suspect this could have just been a conversatIon between her and Trump and it may not have been necessary to throw our respective economies into chaos.
On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to wonder if Trump’s aggressive moves may have spurred her to greater urgency than she would have shown on her own. More cooperation on this front between the two countries seems like a good thing.
Hard to argue that Trumps actions didn’t help accelerate the process.
I would not, and did not, argue that.
Never said you did
Was there maybe a way to make this progress that didn’t involve an across the board extreme tariff? That hurts Americans. Why the should cost to Americans for everything from avocados to new cars go up 25%?
Not that has worked up to the date of the threatened tariffs but I’m sure there was. Problem is, it wasn’t done then either.
So do open borders and border countries not interested in reigning the effects of such.
Talk to me if it really happens. I haven’t experienced that yet. Have you? That said, if it does happen it will hurt the importers people just as much or more. You might not agree with the negotiation tactic but that is exactly all it is IMO.
I think that it did. It's possible Trump did her a favor, in fact. It may be the case that Trump's actions will affect a lot of rich Mexican businesspeople and are now more behind what President Sheinbaum campaigned on concerning her promise to combat the drug cartels (assuming that was an honest promise to begin with).
Personally, I don't think Mexico has been a friend or economic partner of the US for some time now. I don't have a problem with Trump using Tariffs as a means to change that. Some claim that tariffs are the wrong way to go about it and that private negotiations are much more 'diplomatic'. My opinion is that if that were the better way, either it doesn't work, as one assumes that every other administration would have tried that or that every other administration actually preferred the status quo. Read into that what you will.
Yeah, maybe. Mexico has been so corrupt for so long when it comes to these drug cartels, it is hard to know where all the sticking points are, even for a new president who wants to make reforms.
I think for a long time, they just haven’t seen it as their problem. That may not be reality, but it sure feels like that from this side of the border. Now it is their problem. Unfortunately, sweeping tariffs have also made it a problem for every American consumer.
Tariffs, or the threat thereof, seemed to be the only thing that spurred the Mexican government to take action.
Of course they were necessary.
That comment is both absurd and naive.
Trump did not even attempt to negotiate with Mexico in private. A rational PotUS would do that. And if Mexico would not comply, the prospect of tariffs can be placed on the table as part of the diplomatic process. Publicly threatening tariffs —especially before any negotiation— is just brain-dead stupid. Further, tariffs should be a last resort ... not the opening salvo.
Trump is a loose-cannon who is stubbornly stupid and making unforced error after unforced error.
Eventually (maybe) Trump supporters will realize this (probably when they get sick of even higher prices, etc.) and start to break free of whatever hold this demagogue has on their minds.
And you know this how? And why didn't the Biden administration make any attempt to stop the influx of illegals or urge Biden to tell the Mexican government to get tough on the cartels
How do you know? Do you work for the Mexican government or something?
Do you have any reports of a meeting?
See @2.1.3
Not one of the trade partners made any suggestion that there was a meeting. Nobody from the US has made any suggestion of a meeting.
If there was a meeting, there is a quite successful mass conspiracy to keep it quiet.
Well if it's not in the news it must not have happened.... FFS this is tedious.
Right. Like the mass conspiracy that kept the half trillion dollar Ukrainian minerals deal quiet until it was officially announced.
How are you not able to process the established fact that your government has been doing things in secret since long before you were born?
Do you have any insider information on this?
"Publicly threatening tariffs —especially before any negotiation— is just brain-dead stupid. "
Again....how do you know there was no private negotiations with someone from the administration.
"Further, tariffs should be a last resort ... not the opening salvo."
It looks like Trump is not interested in taking your advice.
"Eventually (maybe) Trump supporters will realize this (probably when they get sick of even higher prices, etc.) and start to break free of whatever hold this demagogue has on their minds."
Could you change the name in that comment from Trump to Biden and show us where you posted a similar comment during that disastrous admin of dementia boy and the DEI hire VP?
High level meeting between heads of state or individuals such as the SoS are routinely reported. These are quite newsworthy events. Surely you are aware of this.
Show me any meeting that has been reported between US and Mexico and US and Canada prior to Trump's bombastic threat of tariffs.
You can find reports of meetings after the threat, but nothing prior to it.
Do the math, Jack. Was is more likely to you: there was a private meeting that went unreported and has never been mentioned by any official outlet or any news media from Mexico or Canada or the USA
-or-
No private meeting took place and the trade partners heard of the threat when it was publicly announced.
Yeah, it is tedious dealing with people who endlessly try to stick up for Trump no matter how absurd.
Maybe it is your comment that is those things. Presumably, every other administration did exactly that. What resulted? Nothing. Either that, or they actually wanted the prevailing conditions and so, did nothing. Whichever of those is true, what's the point of more of your style of diplomacy? While we're being 'diplomatic', Mexico will continue to allow every nation south of their borders into their country, knowing that they intend to pass through into the US, just like they've been doing for decades, in spite of all the kind of diplomacy you seem to prefer. Drugs will still flow into the US from Mexico in spite of the diplomacy you seem to prefer. At what point are you going to recognize that it hasn't been working?
So you want to argue that the only way to get action from Mexico or Canada is to publicly threaten them with gratuitous across-the-board tariffs.
It is likely that no other administration made such a threat even in private because it is brain-dead-stupid to impose across-the-board 25% tariffs given they are punitive and are not temporary measures to shore up specific domestic industries. (And most PotUS understand that tariffs are paid by US consumers.)
But, per your speculation, if a threat of an across-the-board tariff is the only way to get action then this threat should have been delivered privately. Not bombastically announce this to the entire world. And certainly to not follow it up with insults and trolling of our trade partners.
So, Drakk, do you actually believe that it is more effective for Trump to put our trade partners in an embarrassing public situation where they must now consider how to avoid making their nations look weak on the world stage and with their citizens or for Trump to engage our trade partners in private and deliver whatever threat or carrot is necessary to move the needle?
Give me an honest explanation for why public braggadocio trolling and threats of across-the-board tariffs is better than private, presidential negotiations with a big stick (of threats) sitting in the corner.
How many decades of "diplomacy" and "meetings" have we had over these issues with Mexico? What point is there in having more? Trump already did all the diplomacy necessary during his campaign, telling Mexico what he was going to do if Mexico didn't get their shit together. They didn't. FAFO. How many times do you want to try the same thing for no results?
I swear, if you were in charge in 1939, Germany would own Europe.
Trump wants fentanyl to stop (actually that is more an excuse to avoid having to go to Congress to impose his tariff). But assuming he is being truthful (for the sake of argument), Trump could have had a private meeting with Mexico and, if necessary, threaten them in private of a 25% across-the-board tariff if they do not meet his fentanyl policing demands.
See?
The public threat is no more potent than the one delivered in private. But the public threat brings with it unnecessary counterproductive aspects.
Non sequitur. Looks like you are just trying to insult me.
[✘]
Gratuitous: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.
What, exactly, do you find gratuitous about the tariffs? Drugs and immigrants are going across the border and Canada and Mexico haven't been doing anything effective to stop it.
Why not? The conditions that caused Trump to impose the tariffs certainly weren't alleviated by diplomacy or any previous private conversations by other admins.
That, I can agree with. Trump is using unwarranted language, in my opinion. It's meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator of emotional response. Not a good idea in my worldview.
Yes. Because Trump isn't asking them to do something immoral or anything. He wants them to stop letting people and drugs cross their and our borders. Then, of course, there are the economic concerns of trade imbalances.
Two different subjects. The language Trump uses works against him. He needs to stop doing that as it makes it harder to achieve what he desires. The tariffs are better because private, presidential negotiations don't work or we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, as these problems would have been solved long ago. As far as I can tell, being seen as 'diplomatic' is more important to you than solving the actual problems.
No, it's obviously a comment about your desire that being seen as diplomatic is far more important to you than actually solving the problem.
Tariffs are historically used as temporary measures to help a particular domestic industry better compete. Typically the industry is one of strategic importance to the USA such as steel. Tariffs are used punitively (rarely) in response to tariffs by other nations.
An instigating across-the-board tariff does not apply in either situation.
But the key reason I refer to Trump's actions as gratuitous is because they were made PUBLICLY rather than first engaging the trading partner in PRIVATE.
So, to be crystal clear, there is no good reason (see the tie to 'gratuitous'?) for Trump to initiate 'negotiations' with Mexico and Canada by PUBLICLY threatening an across-the-board 25% tariff if they do not meet his demands. Engage them PRIVATELY and maybe hold off on the ridiculously punitive threats as a last resort.
This reads as if you do not understand that the threat of a tariff can be delivered PRIVATELY (and could be done diplomatically instead of like a grade-school bully).
That is a total misunderstanding of my point.
I am saying that the exact same effect could be achieved privately. That the PUBLIC attempts at bullying and humiliation are counter-productive.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that PRIVATE negotiations have 'failed' in the past so the only way to negotiate is with PUBLIC badgering. (Note that Trump is trying to renegotiate the USMCA agreement that he had negotiated in his first term.)
I am pointing out that if the threat of tariffs accomplishes something good then that good would have come from PRIVATE, diplomatic delivery too!
Um! Really? Right now both Canada and Mexico are scrambling to try to meet Trump's demands. How is that not potent? What's counterproductive about it? Pissing them off? I'm pretty pissed off about the 250,000 fentanyl deaths just since 2018! Mexico is not a friend of the US. They push as many drugs and people over the border as they can because it harms us and benefits them. Canada, in spite of its NATO obligations, has reduced the size of its Navy, in spite the threat China presents the West. They are relying on us rather than meeting their obligation.
Not sure how I could be more clear, Drakk.
I am saying that the exact same effect could be achieved privately. That the PUBLIC attempts at bullying and humiliation are counter-productive.
A private threat of across-the-board tariffs is just as potent as a PUBLIC, bombastic threat and it does not have the negatives associated with Trump engaging in childish trolling and bullying and publicly putting the trade partners in the position of having to avoid looking weak to other nations and to their people.
Which doesn't meet the definition of gratuitous. Sorry.
Clearly, I, and many others, disagree. There's plenty of good reasons, some of which I listed. You, on the other hand, only state that it's not 'diplomatic' and that it embarrasses others. Okay, true, but that's not an actual reason.
See, here's the thing. Trump rightly has the position that we're not going to stand for certain things anymore. Other countries pushing people across our borders. Drugs being pushed into our country. Disparities in trade. These problems aren't new. We've presumably tried diplomacy for decades or our government is simply complicit in the current conditions. Either way, there's no longer need for diplomacy, since we have to assume that's been tried.
It's that simple. Diplomacy was tried with Hitler. Thankfully, the right people recognized when it failed and did something else rather than keep on trying what obviously wasn't working.
Follow the evidence, TiG. Right?
Uh, and? Do you think I'm unclear on your position???
Then why do we have the problem we have now? Are you saying that the Biden/Obama/Bush/Clinton admins didn't do that very thing? If not, why not? Because they were complicit? Whichever it was, what's the point of doing what hasn't worked? Why are you not answering that question?????????????????????????
No, it's more that I'm more than willing to see what Trump is able to accomplish with the way he's trying to get things done.
Obviously that is not true.
Drakk is right. There have been private negotiations for decades for essentially the same things over and over and very little, if anything, has changed.
Maybe these leaders needed to be publicly called out. It certainly gottheir attention, and so far, the desired effects.
You are resorting to word games.
You keep ignoring my point. Anything that Trump delivered publicly could have been delivered privately. There is no good that comes from putting trade partners on the defensive on the world stage. There is no good that comes from publicly trolling and taunting trade partners on the world stage.
Let us pretend that the across-the-board tariff threat will solve the fetanyl problem to Trump's satisfaction. We do not know that this is the case, but we can assume it.
Okay?
With that assumption, explain to me how it is better for Trump to publicly berate and try to bully our trade partners and thus put them in a position of having to act to show they are not weak to the rest of the world and to their own people.
Explain why the exact same threat delivered privately would not have the same positive effect without the bad effects of public threats and taunts?
If the threat of tariffs is going to move the ball then it is going to have the effect when delivered privately.
Says the guy who used a word gratuitously.
Yes, it could have. Happy? Are you now going to say that because he could have that this fact somehow translates to the right course of action on that fact alone????
Now, address my point. Why do so when, presumably, that's been the modus operandi for decades and has gotten us nowhere. Because that is the real address of your point that I have made. Why keep doing the same thing expecting a different result? That doesn't mean what Trump is trying to do will work, of course. But it seems like something that should be obvious to any objective observer that doing what you suggest is pointless as evidenced by history.
One of the curious things about this is there was contact between Trump and President Sheinbaum going back to November. I think she had been president for a month when we had our election when she sent him a congratulatory letter and they actually spoke on the phone not long after.
The reporting on this was that they talked about immigration and drugs, but I have not seen anything that indicated Trump expected some specific level of performance from Mexico or he would institute tariffs. I think that’s why the leaders of Mexico and Canada were caught so off guard.
It’s like you talk to someone and think you have an understanding. You even agree on shared goals. And then he lights on your car on fire claiming you won’t cooperate. It’s kinda psycho.
If the threat of an across-the-board tariff will accomplish the desired result, then it will accomplish it if delivered privately.
Okay.
I'll accept the first assumption, but not the assumption of this question. That is, that I should care about whether they are seen as weak to the world or their own people. I would have cared if they had, in the past, cared about our concerns but they seem not to. So I don't care about how they feel about it. I only care that they stop pushing immigrants in their country onto us. I only care that drugs entering their country don't enter ours. I only care that our workers have more job opportunities over theirs.
I have already done so multiple times. Not doing it again.
Possibly, but I'm perfectly happy with it being done publicly. I prefer a much more transparent government.
I am curious as to why I have to spend countless posts repeating the point I made before you even acknowledge it.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
I am running out of ways to address your point. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the problem is private negotiations. You seem to ignore the fact that the problem is the deal, not the fact that the deal took place privately.
I am not suggested we do the same thing. I am suggesting that the way to best achieve positive results is to negotiate whatever the new deal is in private rather than start negotiations by publicly threatening trade partners with gratuitous across-the-board tariffs.
If Trump succeeds by pressuring trade partners with tariffs then he would succeed by doing so in private. You keep ignoring that the difference will be what is discussed and that having a private negotiation is not doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Are you aware that our nation's businesses engage in private negotiations all the time as a normal course of business. They cut deals all the time and the deals are of course different. The modus operandi of having a private (not public) negotiation is the same but the results are different.
Do you see how ridiculous it is for you to argue that the reason we have not seen desired results is because the meetings were private and NOT because of the terms of the negotiation itself?
As do the 74 million Americans that voted for Trump. One of the many reasons why they did. He promised it and is delivering.
Well that is just nutty. You prefer to have the PotUS engage in braggadocio bullying and taunting of our trade partners in front of the entire planet rather than have that ugly crap take place behind closed-doors.
There is no reasoning with such irrational thinking.
And many don't seem to realize that there are definite Negatives to this campaign to bully others. Trump is totally proven to be an untrustworthy LIAR! Causing our trade partners, friends, and allies, to all question, just as his detractors and fans here alike in the US, to question what he says as being real, or over the top zealous spiel. As his threatening childish immature greatly impure tweets and texts leave US and All disgusted and in awe, and also unsure of what the mental maniacal midget miscreant of mayhem, is ever actually saying.
These uncertainties, brought about with his obvious mental disease, have only caused our trading partners and allies, to seek other more stable partners, as his ever changing twisted mind, they find, they can't trust one who goes back and forth like a piston, while scraping the cylinder walls each time, then blowing out his ears his fiery rhetoric about imaginary immigration cuisine, inflation, and those damn transgender queers, looking to him so handsome and lean, it's plane and fancy obscene as his mandate forces air 1, to trans port his family ands son, to White Power House 1.
Countries are seeking other trading partners due to Trumps reckless behavior and ever moving goal posts, for it appears to be more about yelling and complaining yet never fully explaining, as he wishes all, just like the GOP, to come and bend down before, some orange clown who'd pay $135,000.00 to some poor porn star, or possibly some street whore, to help boost his tiny insecure ego, just to have them in front kneel, to him, to make better feel, the bully behind the re art of the deal. Same be true with our allies around the world. For when it comes to Trump, it's almost always all lies.
We will be left that country he is attempting to make 'America First' , and we will soon see a version of America at its worst
I think they know this quite well but have determined that defending Trump is more important to them. So they will engage in faux obtuseness, etc. to defend Trump no matter how flawed / dishonest their arguments wind up being.
Can you imagine the level of avoidable animosity and retribution that would result if all private negotiations in diplomacy, government, and business were conducted in public forums? It is like engaging in debate on social media forums. I am convinced that much of the irrational crap in forums such as ours is a result of people watching their argument crumble and engaging in dishonest tactics to save face.
( I do recognize that others —who do not care about their online reputation— will simply write whatever they can to be obnoxious. )
Of course they are. And this is exacerbated by Trump's 180° turn on the USA role of leader of the free world. The last thing NATO expected was for the USA to reverse itself and start aligning with Russia against an ally that they invaded! So thinking that the actions of Trump are not affecting other nations is beyond naive. I do not believe aware adults with above average intelligence truly believe that Trump has not harmed international relationships.
yes, i'm aware, but cannot help myself sometimes.
And yes, there are others and from reading trheir thoughts, it is very diffCult to comprehend that they can't
Because it's akin to asking someone to acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4 or that water is wet. Of course he could have done it in private. Of course I could have had orange juice instead of water for breakfast. Why in the hell would anyone have to waste electrons substantiating the obvious???
It means, having stated something so obvious that it need not be mentioned for even the dullest person, what was the point of forcing an obvious response?
If I'm stuck on something, it's your insistence on a method that, presumably, multiple admins have already attempted, assuming that they didn't actually prefer the status quo extant at the time. That is, yes, Trump could have had private negotiations, but my assumption is that, if our government was doing what it should have been doing during previous admins, that had already been tried. So, why waste time doing what has already been done?
In my view, your concern isn't actually the problem being addressed but, rather, the method used to address it. That is, that negotiation is the actual goal, not the problem. Again, in my view, your issue is not the problem but, rather, Trump. It's possible you might actually back Trump if all he did is do what his predecessors presumably did, Negotiate. You wouldn't care what the outcome was. Just that he negotiated.
I'm sure that you'll disagree with what I just said. Probably with some justification, as I'm sure I oversimplified your position, but I did so less out of what your position may be than what I see as the practical application of what I see your position resulting in. Best case scenario, you want Trump to negotiate privately before taking it public.
I would agree with that, absent historical precedent. Unfortunately for your argument, we have precedent. As I have stated repeatedly, presumably other admins have done just what you suggested, assuming they didn't actually desire the status quo. Assuming that previous admins tried to accomplish Trump's goals through negotiations, publicly or privately, you have yet to provide a shred of reasoning for Trump (or anyone else) from taking the same path. Stating that Trump could have done this privately in light of my question isn't reasoning.
What the actual F???? My argument is precisely that the problem is the deal. You are the one complaining that it isn't being done privately. Trump is dispensing with the usual BS and simply going for the goal, since the usual BS has been demonstrably shown not to be effective.
And the " the fact that the deal took place privately "? What are you talking about? It is not a fact that it took place privately. That's the point of your complaint!
Oh, for goodness sake! Gratuitous again? Fine. Let me educate you on the word, since you seem to need it. Again...
Uncalled for: Hardly. We had millions of people crossing the border. Over 250,000 fentanyl deaths from 2018 alone and trade imbalances. Those issues need to be addressed so, hardly uncalled for.
lacking good reason; Nope, for the afore mentioned reason.
unwarranted; Again, for the afore mentioned reasons.
So, please stop with the gratuitous use of gratuitous.
Further, it seems to me we're getting positive results without the negotiations, which, assuming previous admins had already done if they were doing their job. I mean, what the hell do you expect negotiations to be?
US: We don't want you passing immigrants from your country or from others into our country. We want you to do something about the drug cartels which are killing so many of our citizens. We want a more balanced trade agreement.
Mexico: How much will you pay us to do this? It has to be more than what we're making as things are.
US: ???
Aside from the fact that you can't possibly know that, and the fact that history argues against you, making it public rather than private removes all the political bullshit. Privately, Mexico or Canada can extort concessions for something that any moral person would not demand concessions for. For instance, we're not going to stop sending illegal aliens across your border unless you do X for us. You want us to fight the cartels? Give us x billion dollars and we'll make some token efforts. That is the historical fact.
Nope. Primarily because this question is a misrepresentation of my argument. I am not arguing that the reason we failed in the past is because the meetings were private, although that may be a factor in their failure. My argument is that, assuming such negotiations took place in the first place, that they obviously did not produce the desired result so, therefore, why not try Trump's method? It couldn't be worse.
Oh! Wait! Yes, they could. I might have to pay more for avocados in the short term. Maybe long term. Fine by me. I don't mind paying more for them or simply not buying them, if the end result is that less of our citizens die from fentanyl. If there are less illegal aliens I am forced to spend a portion of my workday being forced to support regardless of my feelings on the subject.
I did not ask if it could be done in private but rather I have argued that it should be done in private.
If you do indeed recognize the content of the deal is what matters, then why are attempting to argue that Trump PUBLICLY threatening and taunting our trade partners before even sitting down with them in PRIVATE negotiation is NOT a stupid move?
If you recognize that the content matters then clearly a PRIVATE meeting with new content is NOT doing the same thing and expecting different results.
In reality, negotiations take place in PRIVATE for a very good reason. It enables substantially more flexibility and enables emotional outbursts / ugly exchanges / etc. to be contained within the meeting as opposed to be known publicly (and thus requiring dealing with the fallout).
PRIVATE negotiation is the overwhelming norm for that reason.
Your argument is ridiculous.
[✘]
Total nonsense. This is what I was addressing that you are now complaining about.
To which I responded in 2.1.24
I directly answered your question. Trump could have done this in private; a fact so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned any more that stating that, because it's raining, going outside means we're going to get wet.
But that isn't really what you meant by saying I keep ignoring your point, is it, which leads to the current post I'm addressing.
What you really meant is that because it could have been done privately, that was therefore enough reason by itself to prove that doing so was the only acceptable method for Trump to pursue. The only justification for your position you present is that Trump's method embarrasses his targets, as if that trumps the burden of fentanyl deaths in America or the burden on taxpayers the open border policy of the Dems have inflicted on the American people aren't relevant.
Are you actually reading what I write? No, wait. Are you actually considering the merit of what I write? How many times do I need to say that history proves that negotiations have not been an effective means to accomplish our goals before you understand my argument? I would write the following question in crayon if I could.
If negotiating in the manner you champion works, why are we in this crisis at this time?
That question is based on the premise that previous admins tried that very thing. Either that, or that they were complicit in intentionally creating the current conditions for whatever benefit it provided them.
I don't understand this. Are you saying that border security and drug enforcement are new content? My gut reaction is to write a bunch of stuff saying this quote is nonsense, but it's so obviously wrong as written that I have to wonder if you actually mean something other than what it seems to say, so I'm asking for clarification. Specifically, what new content?
Yep. And, to a point, I agree with this. To a point. But there comes a point, in my view, that this goes out the window. There comes a point where one has to recognize that diplomacy isn't making it. Churchill was the Trump of his time, prior to Germany's invasion of Poland.
Back at yah. Now what?
Yet another outstanding rebuttal
And yet again you write this as if you are making some new point. My point, yet again, is that he should have done this in private. We all know that he could have done it.
It will either be diplomacy or force. Trump's rhetoric is a form of diplomacy; it is an incredibly stupid form, but a form nonetheless.
In all you are trying to argue that preemptive PUBLIC threats to our closest trade partners is more effective than sitting down with them in PRIVATE and delivering the threat (if necessary) during private negotiations. That somehow they will be more willing to cooperate if they are PUBLICLY on the defensive; if they have to also save face on the world stage.
You are trying to argue that putting them in a position where they must take actions so that they do not appear weak on the world stage is better than giving them plenty of options to describe the final agreement in terms that put them in the best light.
That is idiotic. Utter nonsense.
[✘]
I'm not the subject of the discussion. I have clearly stated that past, traditional efforts at diplomacy hasn't worked. address that, not me.
What you write and the arguments you make are fair game!
No, but you are writing and you are arguing and you are directing comments to me so I will direct my rebuttals to you. See how that works?
If I was making you the subject of the discussion I would be talking about you personally, not what you are writing.
I have repeatedly addressed that. Pay attention.
Having a private negotiation is not doing the same thing and expecting a different result any more than driving a car is just doing the same old thing with the same result. There are all sorts of terms and methods one can use in private negotiation just as there are all sorts of destinations to be reached by driving a car.
You keep absurdly claiming that a PUBLIC bullying of our closest trade partners produces an effect that could not be accomplished by sitting down in private negotiation.
I have stated that the exact same threat was available to Trump in PRIVATE negotiation. So what is the advantage of doing this publicly and putting our trade partners in a position where they must preserve their dignity on the world stage and not look weak? What advantage is gained by complicating matters and making it difficult for trade partners to agree and also look good on the world stage? What is the advantage of projecting to the entire planet that the USA has elected an asshole who will disrespect our closest trade partners? Projecting to the world that whatever trust you had in the good faith of the USA was too high a level and that it is wise to work to become less dependent upon the USA.
You have yet to state something positive that Trump accomplished with his PUBLIC braggadocio attempts at bullying that could not have been accomplished with PRIVATE negotiation.
There is no advantage to going PUBLIC right off the bat. Take your clue from other negotiation that take place in the private and public sectors. What sort of an idiot would leap to PUBLIC threats against a negotiation partner as the opening salvo of a negotiation?
There is one answer: Trump.
Here is how Trump could accomplish the same results in a private negotiation.
Nation: What would you like to discuss President Trump?
Trump: You need to stop fentanyl crossing your border. If you do not do so to my satisfaction, I will impose a 25% across-the-board tariff on your nation.
The dialogue at that point, given Trump's rude and arrogant style would be harsh. It would be an argument. Eventually, though, they would likely come to terms. And if they did NOT come to terms, then Trump always has the (brain-dead-stupid) option of imposing tariffs and hurting US consumers.
Now, if they do come to terms (in private) Trump will of course lie about his accomplishments to pretend he did better than he actually did.
The trade partner, however, can spin their own version of the negotiation in a manner that looks like a routine negotiation and retains their dignity and their strength.
Exactly!
Trump is working for posterity's sake, so he wants his accomplishments to be well known by all. When it comes to drug lords, he and they speak the same language: Power. So Trump has broadcast his thoughts (as they may be) and, while it is bad-form to just splash everything around, he does not care how much he gets wrong, as long as he is given credit for the good outcomes.
[✘]
We are not in 1930's England. And I would enjoy further elucidation on the claim.
Um, yeah. This post is so unhinged that it's apparent that responding to it will have no useful purpose beyond providing you a platform for continuing your unhinge-ness. The reality is pretty simple. We've tried one way for decades. Now Trump is trying another way. Whether it will work remains to be seen, although preliminary data seems to indicate positive results.
But, by all means, this is a free platform. Conjure any dark scenario you wish.
And here you go with the desperate theatrics. SMH
Repeating this irrational claim is not an argument.
You are trying to argue that private negotiation has not worked (and that is flat out wrong) and that this new way: public threats as the opening salvo will work better.
I have pointed out that the success of a negotiation is a function of the terms and the relative strengths of the parties. The terms and the strengths are just as present in private negotiations as they are when an asshole decides to start negotiations with a public threat heard across the planet.
The difference is that making this public (with a threat no less) right off the bat cause the negotiating partner to not only have to deal with the terms and relative strengths, but must now do so in a manner that does not make the look weak. Trumps brain-dead-stupid tactic of taking this public complicates matters. It is counterproductive. And worse, it harms international relationships.
There is no defense for Trump's public braggadocio bullying attempts. That is why your posts repeat the same simplistic nonsense and play dishonest little games.
I think that Drak is saying "the ends justify the means...."
I am not of the opinion that they do.
First, if you're going to shorten my name, please use Drakk. Second, I can't imagine how you reached such a conclusion. My position is exactly no more or less than what I stated. That the assumed diplomacy that TiG desires has no real effect and that I'm willing to see what Trump's method accomplishes. How do you get 'the end justifies the means' out of that? Or is that just a rhetorical ploy on your part?
If all that Canada has done to guard the border from the less than 1% of the fentanyl and migrants crossing into the USA - $1.3B spent, BlackHalks patrolling, beefed up numbers of border agents deployed, many crossing points closed, a fentanyl watchdog appointed, isn't good enough for Emperor Trump a 100 ft high steel wall stretching from 500 feet off the Pacific coast all along the border to all the way to 500 ft off the Atlantic coast wouldn't be good enough for him. And Americans wonder why Canadians are angry enough to react with what they're doing in retaliation.
As long as Americans are going to create the demand, there is going to be supply even if it has to be dropped from drones launched from submarines.
Sure. Research how Churchill was viewed prior to Chamberlain's downfall.
It is clear that the fentanyl issue is simply an excuse that gave Trump a technical option to effect tariffs with an EO rather than go through Congress.
He clearly was not going to be satisfied regardless of actions by the trade partners.
You continue with a dishonest fantasy.
I have argued against publicly threatening trade partners prior to engaging them privately. The same threat could be delivered privately; sparing all the negatives I outlined.
You have no argument that shows how a preemptive public threat is better than delivering the exact same threat in private. I have, however, illustrated how the public threat is counterproductive.
LE data proves most fentanyl brought into the US is by americans. trumpski's theatrics impress his cult.
OK, I will try to remember that.
Well, how I got to that conclusion was through logic.
That is correct. And if you are waiting and seeing how this type of "diplomacy" works out, presumably you are waiting for an outcome you would determine to be positive. Upon such an eventuality, aka, it worked, you will say "it worked" (why else would one "Wait and See" ???) and was therefore "Effective", correct? Therefore, since the condition of waiting and seeing have been met (The Ends), you will then proclaim that Trump's being a bully (The Means) is an effective method of diplomacy (justification of), even though it is not really "diplomacy" at all.
Thank you.
Okay. That actually makes sense, sort of. However, it needs to be pointed out that any method can be classified in such a manner. The My Little Pony view of those who champion endless diplomacy are guilty of the same thing. That is, some starry eyed idea that if only we present our concerns in the right way then it will magically make our opposition recognize the rightness of our cause. And because they believe that, it doesn't really matter how much we suffer because of that view. It's the end goal that matters.
In actuality, though, the end justifies the means meme actually refers to an action that is extreme, morally. Do you really think that what Trump is doing is extreme, morally? Or just politically?
Presenting concerns with an approach that introduces unnecessary negatives is just plain stupidity.
Trump could have engaged Canada, for example, privately and if needed could have delivered the exact same threat. You have yet to explain how preemptively delivering a threat on the world stage offers any advantage to delivering that exact same threat privately. Indeed, the private exchange would have enabled Trump to threaten to humiliate them publicly. He blew that chip away right off the bat. Stupid.
Do you also think his new approach of taunting Canada as the 51st state makes them more likely to negotiate?
If a salesman kicks you in the balls while shaking your hand, are you more inclined to listen to his sales pitch or punch his lights out? He certainly is 'trying a new approach'.
It is both morally and politically wrong, IMO. Morally, because one does not tell their friends and neighbors that they are going to start a war with them if they don't comply to one's wishes. One can be very firm about the imposition of tariffs IF the other side does not do whatever.
Bully tactics only work when when people suspect one is not bluffing. In addition, it is not a really great way to treat friends.
Then Canada has no option but to diversify, seek out new nations for imports, exports and travel destinations. From what I've been reading Canadians are now carefully checking what they purchase to make sure they're not Americn products and buying Canadian ones. As far as the automobile industry is concerned, there was a reason why the CEOs of the 3 top American manufacturers sought a reprieve - it was because when it comes to manufacturing their cars it takes two to tango. So much for what was for so many years a friendly relationship between neighbours.
Okay. Not that I agree that this applies in this situation but, okay. I completely appreciate that you are talking about your point of view.
Yup. Very reasonable, under certain circumstances. I just don't think they apply currently. It isn't as if these circumstances just popped up out of nowhere just this minute, nor is such a view inviolate, as if it applies regardless of the circumstances. It is not the case, IMO, that just because there's a new POTUS that everything just magically resets and we all have to start from the beginning again, going through some mandated set of steps before getting to the point. I don't have a problem with skipping all the traditional steps and just getting to the point.
Yes, he could have. Question is, what advantage would there be in doing so and who's advantage would it be? In my opinion, doing what he has done, the advantage is there's little ambiguity in what he is demanding. Why in the hell would we want to give even our supposed allies negotiating room concerning the fentanyl crisis, for instance? What, exactly, do you think there is to negotiate? In my opinion, making it public, as Trump has done, sets an ironclad position on our part. There's no greasy wiggle room. I really don't have a problem with that. And that doesn't even take into account that, presumably, prior admins already tried that, assuming they were doing their job.
None of this is new. I keep saying the same thing and you keep ignoring it. Instead, you just keep on saying "negotiations" as if that hasn't already been done. Possibly, it hasn't, but if so, that would be because previous admins wanted the crisis or, more neutrally, didn't care about the issue in the first place.. What other explanation could there be?
Whatever the reason, why in the hell would more 'negotiation' be the right course of action? Just what the hell is wrong with saying 'We don't like this. Do something about it or we'll do X' in public? I can't predict, as apparently you feel you can, that what Trump is doing will be effective. But one thing is for sure, IMO. He doesn't seem to be doing some sort of behind the scenes crap that doesn't take citizens in account. He's telling us just what he's doing and, damn, that's refreshing!
Yes, I have and it's not a case of being preemptive. This is not some new issue that just popped up. It is a problem spanning decades. And the advantage is that we're signaling that we're done screwing around. 'Done screwing around' should be read as 'we've tried the negotiating crap and it didn't work. Now you get this.' Whether you realize it or not, that's a form of negotiating as well.
Um, yeah. By saying this you are saying that it hasn't been tried before Trump. Since I'm going to assume that you believe that what you're saying is exactly what previous admins attempted, the perpetually unanswered question on your part is, why the hell does it make sense to continue to do what doesn't work? So far, your answer is that the image of 'diplomacy' as you see it is more important than the issue.
Do you also think his new approach of taunting Canada as the 51st state makes them more likely to negotiate?
No.
Bad analogy. It isn't a case of trying to attain something we want. It's a case of stopping something we don't want. A better analogy would be a neighbor breeding rats for the purpose of releasing them on your property and then wanting to negotiate some settlement. Why the hell would we do that?
The advantages of a public negotiation ALSO exist in a private negotiation because the advantages are a function of bargaining power of the participants. However, a private negotiation does not have the negatives brought by a public threat.
Public Negotiation with Preemptive Threat
Negatives of a preemptive public threat (using Canada as the example):
In result, Canada must now execute a public strategy to deal with its image. This complicates matters and was entirely unnecessary. Further, Canada will be less likely to trust the upcoming negotiation and will be more careful in the terms. Going forward, since Canada now recognizes that the USA is capable of electing an irresponsible asshole as PotUS, they will engage in strategic initiatives to reduce their dependence upon the USA. This involves establishing more diversified trade and building pipelines which do not rely upon USA pipeline infrastructure to export fossil fuels to other trade partners.
None of the above is positive for the USA. The preemptive PUBLIC threat is all negative and offers no advantage. It will NOT make Canada more likely to engage in negotiation. If anything, it would be the opposite.
Private Negotiation
In contrast, a private negotiation has the flexibility to engage in candid discussions with none of the above negatives. If we take Trump at his word (just as a theoretical exercise) he threatened tariffs unless Canada took actions to address the fentanyl problem. In the case of Canada, last year about 43 pounds of fentanyl was seized at the Canadian border. This is a tiny amount. But Canada launched its (already planned) Operation Blizzard in February 2025 which deals with that and more.
In a private negotiation, Trump would inform Canada of his intent to impose a 25% across-the-board tariff if they do not comply with his demands. That insulting tone would not be publicly heard. Canada would have informed Trump of their Operation Blizzard and he would have (being theoretical still) recognized that they have already taken steps to address the problem and that no tariff is required. They might even deliver this message diplomatically.
Now, we all know that fentanyl is just an excuse for Trump to impose tariffs. So he would have declared that the tariffs will be imposed until Operation Blizzard proves a new reduction (of the ridiculously small amount already) of fentanyl. He would be, in a word, unreasonable. In this case, the meeting could turn ugly with Canada objecting to the unreasonable and unnecessary imposition of tariffs. They would describe counter-measures that they would enact. And all of this turmoil would be contained within the private meeting. Likely several meetings.
Publicly the world would know that the USA and Canada are renegotiating the agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. And that the issue was fentanyl and that Canada is planning to deploy its Operation Blizzard that it had in the works.
Now, moving from the theoretical, Trump was going to impose tariffs on Canada, et. al. no matter what. His excuse of fentanyl is bullshit. So after the private negotiations (where all the animosity is contained), Trump could declare that they did not reach a suitable agreement and that tariffs will be imposed until such time as they do. So he gets his brain-dead-stupid tariffs while minimizing the negatives of a preemptive, gratuitous threat.
A lie. You keep claiming that negotiations in the past have failed (which, by the way, is not even true) so it makes sense for Trump to instead engage in public humiliation and bullying of our closest trade partners.
That is ridiculous. I have repeatedly pointed out that the bargaining position of the USA is just as strong in private negotiation as it is in public. (Obviously.) Further, I have noted how public negotiation is replete with negatives and more difficult to come to terms.
In short, there is a reason why negotiations are held in private rather than publicly. There is a reason why threats (if necessary) are delivered privately. I have explained why repeatedly. Maybe you should do some research.
Now on an entirely different aspect, do you believe that Trump is imposing tariffs on Canada (as an example) to get them to address the fentanyl issue (43 measly pounds seized in 2024)?
Hopefully you see beyond that and realize that Trump is using fentanyl as an excuse to impose tariffs via EO rather than go through Congress. And thus you should realize that this buffoon was going to impose tariffs no matter what.
Given that, do you agree with Trump imposing tariffs and triggering a trade war (which is happening)?
Do you recognize that consumer prices will rise in the short term, that the stock market will react negatively in the short term, that consumers will reduce spending in the short term, and that this will affect corporate earnings in the medium term? Thus it will affect the stock market yet again when the earnings reports show a decline. And longer term it affects the GDP.
In the meantime, consumers who are already struggling with high prices are dealing with even higher prices.
Why, exactly, are you so driven to defend this buffoon and his bombastic public threats against other nations?
My position as well.
But we have Trump supporters insisting that Trump has not damaged international relationships. Not only does that defy common sense and the myriad reports of negativity against the USA, when presented with public speeches of officials which illustrate the damage to the relationships in clear terms, this is dismissed as 'one person's opinion'.
Essentially, Trump supporters seem to remain under his spell and some are engaging in the most outrageous faux obtuseness and confirmation bias I have seen in forums (and that is saying something).
Or, enough to kill 6,500 measly people, assuming that those 43 measly pounds represents all the fentanyl that tried crossing the border from Canada. Great point, TiG. Now. Excuse me while I go construct my "Down with Trump!" sign.
Ah, yes! Unless I hold your specific opinion, I therefore defend Trump.
In actuality, you aren't capable of understanding how I view things, be it Trump, Biden or some reality where Harris actually won. Therefore, arguing with you about whether I defend Trump or not would be meaningless. There would be no common frame of reference from which to argue.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says that 2 milligrams of fentanyl is a lethal dose in most people. That works out to 227,000 deaths per pound of fentanyl,
'Measly' is (obviously) relative to the amount seized : Canada makes up just 0.2% of US border fentanyl seizures
Spend less time trying desperately to find gotchas and focus more on the actual point. In this case, the point is that the fentanyl problem with Canada is a very tiny portion of the USA fentanyl problem (0.2%) so threatening 25% across-the-board tariffs on Canada was entirely uncalled for. Especially given Canada was already beefing up their security to deal with this and other substance problems.
Irrelevant. You continue to fail to address the points I have made. All you do is pen bullshit deflection and repeat the same truly stupid argument that public preemptive threats on the world stage is ' trying something new ' given ( falsely ) that private negotiations have failed. As if public threats to a long-standing trade partner and ally is productive.
Yet Americans still snort, smoke and shoot it up by the ton...
Natural Selection?
Thanks for the correction. I suspected there was something wrong with my numbers when I wrote it. Glad to have your input.
Good point. We can consider the number of deaths caused by fentanyl introduced into the US through Canada as 'measly' by the same reasoning, then. I feel so relieved!
Sorry, had to stop laughing long enough to reply. I'd normally say something like 'you do realize, don't you.." but you don't. Everything you say here makes sense to you because it's said from your frame of reference. A frame I don't share. So, what's the point?
Statistically, 0.2% is measly and that is obviously my meaning. One death by fentanyl is too much.
Your misrepresentation of my words is slimy dishonesty.
My point is that a 25% across-the-board tariff in response to 0.2% fentanyl problem is overkill — especially given Canada was already beefing up their substance detection programs.
The fentanyl reasoning works for Mexico, but for Canada it illustrates that it is just an excuse for Trump to impose tariffs.
The point is that you are trying to defend Trump's absurd tactic of preemptively threatening our closest trade partners on the world stage as 'trying something new' while refusing to recognize that the impact of that threat is just as strong if delivered in private. And either not understanding or ignoring the unnecessary negatives (which I enumerated) of the USA publicly trashing and trolling our closest trade partners.
To a degree I think, more like "influenced natural selection"...
Statistically, that .2% is capable of killing 2.5%+/- of the population. As you said, one death is too many.
[deleted][✘]
Yes, as I said.
Okay, so then why would you describe .2% as measly when it's capable of killing over 9 million people? Is it because of the record breaking numbers along the southern border?...
Right. So... you call my point of view 'slimy dishonesty' and then immediately provide the justification for my point of view. That is, because you personally find the amount of fentanyl coming across Canadian borders statistically insignificant, Trump's efforts are unwarranted. Yep! I'm definitely the poster boy for "slimy dishonesty". I'm sure the parents of children who died from fentanyl overdose that came over the Canadian border totally agree with you.
Wrong. I have stated that Trump preemptively threatening a 25% across-the-board tariff on Canada is unwarranted (and is a stupid tactic). Given Canada represents about 0.2% of the fentanyl problem, there is no reason to not privately discuss this matter with them. Had he done that, he would have found out that Canada was already getting ready to release its Operation Blizzard which was designed to further address substances illegally crossing the border.
So not only is preemptively trashing and taunting a very close trade partner and ally counterproductive (and just plain stupid) it was unnecessary. And, further, even if Canada was (for whatever reason) unwilling to cooperate, Trump could issue his ridiculous threat in private and avoid all the negatives of publicly trashing and taunting one of our closest allies and trade partners.
You continue to try to defend a buffoon who is unnecessarily harming our nation and others.
Wrong again. I did not call your point of view 'slimy and dishonest' I labeled your tactic as such.
So this measly 43 pounds could kill 9,761,000 people
or looking at the southern border where they seized 21,889 pounds in 2024 alone,
that could kill 4,968,808,000 if my math is correct.
That's 5 trillion dead people. Enough to kill the US population 14.75 times.
Who is left to be arguing that this nonsense is meaningful?
We are all dead right?
No, because 99.7% of us are apparently smart enough
See my comment 21.84.
Nah, they wonder where they went wrong in life if they are honest or they blame God if they dishonestly believe that a higher being should have protected their kids. They wonder if their children failed because it was something they failed to do or if their kids were just that fraction of a percentage of us born to wander and experiment with everything and experience everything.
With all of the political noise associated with drug use in this country, particularly fentanyl awareness, death from fentanyl is only one degree of separation from suicide. Reckless choices.
This is no more than another distraction and Mexico and China bashing while the average American dies slowly of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, cancer and alcoholism.
The only people complaining about this has to be drug addicts[✘]
[✘]