Canada cannot win a trade war with the US. When we are on our knees he’s going to ask for Yukon, nwt and nunavut. Saying basically nobody lives there and we don’t need it. He can easily buy out northern Canadians by offering lots of money or citizenship and the other 39 million Canadians will reluctantly agree it’s the best compromise.

He knows climate change is real and it makes the north more and more viable every day due to its resources and shipping route.

Another obvious hint at this was traitor Danielle Smith suggesting US military bases in the north just last week.

  • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
    0·
    4 days ago
    1. Canada’s economy only looks bad if you use one metric on the economy, GDP. That metric happens to omit exports as well as public sector.
      E.G. the US spends twice what we do on healthcare, and huge profits are made from it. According to the GDP metric, that means it is better.

    In reality, Canadians are doing better than the Americans for health care access and we have the same number of doctors and nurses per capita. We also live longer and are healthier

    1. Canada supplies 60% of the US oil. If we want, we have them by the balls and they’re isn’t a damn thing they can do.
    • floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      4 days ago

      Canada supplies 60% of the US oil. If we want, we have them by the balls and they’re isn’t a damn thing they can do.

      Canada supplies 60% of US oil imports. The USA also uses domestically produced oil. So it’s not true that Canada supplies 60% of their oil in total.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      0·
      4 days ago

      I’m curious where you got that 60% number. The US is the largest oil producer in the world.

      • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        4 days ago

        The US produces crap oil that US refineries can’t even process. We export that, then import the good stuff.

        • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
          0·
          4 days ago

          We’re unwilling to invest in local modern refineries as it’s more profitable to ship the shale oil to other countries with more modern refinery processes. Don’t believe everything you see on Landman.

          Canada refines their own shale and tar sands deposits and ships us crude in a composition that’s easy for our old infrastructure to transport and process.

          • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
            0·
            4 days ago

            What the fuck is a Landman?

            I never said the US was incapable of building (or upgrading) refineries to handle shale (light sulfuric crap) oil. We just don’t, for a variety of reasons. As of today, we ship the crap oil out and import the good stuff.

            • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
              0·
              4 days ago

              We don’t ship any oil, we ship an unrefined slurry, it’s not even crude as that has to be treated to become a homogeneous product. We then have other countries refine that slurry and take on all of the environmental impacts that has to their local groundwater, and then reimport those same deposits here locally. Inefficient? Absolutely. Profitable? Depends on who you ask. The transport and pumping of oil and gas deposits are subsidized by the US government so that oil companies can do this at a profit while ignoring local infrastructure.

              Landman is a television show and is apparently irrelevant to the conversation as I thought that’s where you were picking up these talking points. Oil production in the US is outdated, unneeded if we want to keep gas cheap at the pump, and should only be done to fill our internal oil reserves for national defense. It’s also an infrastructure issue as there are leaking and degrading pipelines all over the US that are contaminating ground water and releasing methane into the air. Secondly since we have to ship what we pump out of the ground we then burn the fuel to transport through pipelines to tankers that then burn bunker fuel, to be refined elsewhere, further fucking the environment, to burn more bunker fuel in the tanker trip back to the US where it’s then further refined into different distillates.

              It’s so much worse than crappy oil.

              Also what’s with your combative tone? Every response I’ve posted to your comments agrees with the thrust of your argument.

              • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
                0·
                4 days ago

                We don’t ship any oil, we ship an unrefined slurry

                The oil products are part of that slurry, so is it slurry with oil products, or oil with crap in it? That’s a weird semantic distinction to make. Crap oil wasn’t intended as the technically correct term, but I chuckle the thought of at seeing that in the paperwork.

                Sorry about the tone. It’s becoming appropriate so often lately that I fear it’s becoming a bad habit.

                I internally objected to you referring to the refinement of the slurry as “modern processes”. It’s not inaccurate, but it implies improvement when the primary advantage is offshoring the pollution, as you just described. I partially think that an impending surge in renewables is a factor in their unwillingness to add the capability here. I guess we’ll see if there is any truth to that now that we are Trumpland and renewables will probably be set back at least a decade.