President Trump, in an early February call, challenged the border treaty between the two countries and told Justin Trudeau he didn’t like their shared water agreements.

The details of the conversations between the two leaders, and subsequent discussions among top U.S. and Canadian officials, have not been previously fully reported, and were shared with The New York Times on condition of anonymity by four people with firsthand knowledge of their content. They did not want to be publicly identified discussing a sensitive topic.

On those calls, President Trump laid out a long list of grievances he had with the trade relationship between the two countries, including Canada’s protected dairy sector, the difficulty American banks face in doing business in Canada and Canadian consumption taxes that Mr. Trump deems unfair because they make American goods more expensive.

He also brought up something much more fundamental.

He told Mr. Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary. He offered no further explanation.

MBFC
Archive

  • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    The stupid part is Trump would never make it an actual 51st state, because then they would have as many electoral college delegates as California.

      • RedC@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        Oh I fully agree the territories should be states, they do everything we do besides have representation in government.

        But I was referencing a youtube series ‘local58’, with all the talk of the “51st state” it’s hard for me to not immediately think of that.

        Remember the three 'F’s

  • mfuga@feddit.dkEnglish
    10·
    1 day ago

    I’m eager to see how the clown expects to ever be trusted again - randomly cancelling his own and ages old treaties at will or using threats to do so for “negotiations” (not to speak threats of annexation of former allies), what’s left for positive diplomacy once he comes to see he needs it?

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1·
    1 day ago

    If this is the same poll as before, the rest say probably not, and 5% checked a box randomly (the lizardman constant).

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    18·
    2 days ago

    Thanks for constantly providing cover for Trump NYT!

    Get fucked with your passive language. It isn’t seen as deadly serious, they’re threats against our fucking sovereignty.

  • LaserEnglish
    131·
    2 days ago

    Canada will be waiting. Fuck around and find out!

          • Shezzagrad@lemmy.mlEnglish
            41·
            1 day ago

            Ya did you dingbat. Hows did that war on ‘terror’ go?

            If you couldn’t beat Vietnamese troops, Isis, alqaeda, the Taliban. You have no hope of beating nato in any serious scenario

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 day ago

        Are you talking about the NATO shortfall? Because the Canadian government has a number of places where it is scrambling to find budget for a lot of things. Consider

        • An expanded commitment to rehoming and financially supporting refugees from Ukraine. Processing and approving 962,612 submissions starting from 2022

        • Reconciliation efforts with notoriously under served indigenous nations to improve dismal conditions of services support, locate and providing funding to document the Residential school genocide and providing better support to survivors.

        • Reinvestment in one of the most challenging Public health care landscapes in the world due to the sheer landmass the government is constitutionally on the hook to cover.

        • A history making sized population of people now reaching retirement age and requiring more drastic critical health interventions and social supports than ever before.

        Static commitments like NATO spending are a bit like rent. If you are financially struggling through other financially challenging problems the landlord cannot often be convinced to give you a temporary forgiveness for extenuating circumstances. All of the above things are challenges that are either in service to international peace against the encroachment of Russia, the thing NATO was created to do, or they represent inflexible commitments the government has to serve the needs of it’s people as written into it’s own laws… But a NATO landlord has a contract with a number and the number doesn’t change no matter what.

      • Shezzagrad@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4·
        1 day ago

        You forget Canada wouldn’t be fighting alone. NATO would have to side with Canada and even if it didn’t every America would be kicked out and NATO would be an anti American force

      • LaserEnglish
        4·
        1 day ago

        We spend money on more things than just a military. We have things like universal Healthcare and education. Ever hear of those things? Doubtful