[data-ottawa]

Why is Canada signing trade deals with China, when we’ve been putting up with tariffs from them for years?

This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.

[lenerdenator]

> This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.

But it doesn't endeavor to ask exactly why the US is behaving this way.

The answer is simple: a mad king. You have a man who thinks the government should be run as his own personal enterprise and is being given license to do so by one of the country's two main political parties. The other half of the country is making it rather clear that they don't approve of this behavior, along with other things happening in the country. There are pictures from the last few days of people protesting while armed in Minnesota.

Tyranny is a problem, obviously, and it's one that has existed as long as power structures have existed in human societies. I can see why Canadians are angry at Trump and the US as a whole. I don't blame you, but if you want to solve the problem of the mad king, you don't sign trade deals that enrich a single-party totalitarian state. You can almost guarantee that come the next international dust-up over something - Oh, just spitballing, maybe freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - the PRC will use that new trade deal as leverage on Canada. It will happen. They will get a return on their investment. That's how authoritarians work.

A deal with literally anyone else would have been better.

[watwut]

But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.

They dont. Republican party supports all of that, fully. Project 2025 came from heretage fund. Supreme court is result of them strategically getting people who support this on it.

Conservatives all like what trump does. Evangelical Christians still support him too.

[jerlam]

The stability of the entire country seems to be suspect.

The US just had its longest government shutdown, where the government was non-functional. Yet no politicians appear to have suffered any consequences, and there are rumors of another.

The "checks and balances" of the government seem to be non-functional, as one branch of government claims to have veto power over all other branches.

The populace appears to have no power over their elected representatives, or possibly supports the current turn of events.

[lenerdenator]

> But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.

That's directly due to the mad king. Trump's the head of the party, and he's used to running an organization where no one questions him, because that's what he did at the Trump Organization for decades. If you vote against him - and some GOP senators did recently - you "receive pressure" to change your mind. What does "receive pressure" mean? I'm not in DC and not in politics, so I can't say for sure, but my guess is it can include things like backing primary/caucus candidates that will be a reliable vote for Trump's agenda come the next election cycle, public disparagement on Truth Social, and tacit threats to derail the representatives' personal agendas for their constituents.

Could it be even more direct, like threats of violence or blackmail? Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me with Trump.

This has existed throughout history in a number of systems of government, but it seems especially bad now in the US because you have someone who came from a system where he never had to encounter any sort of resistance who is now running the executive. Prior to Trump, all modern presidents had at least some experience in government, and it was understood that there was bargaining involved in the system.

I've maintained since the 2015 primaries that you simply cannot have someone from the private world be in such a high office, and this is exactly why.