The Maple Leaf Lounge

[SatrianiRules]

It's much worse than just the rants, he is BLATANTLY engaging in insider trading, not even hiding it. he is manipulating petroleum stocks by changing his tune on the Iran conflict to rig the market.

He is issuing subpoenas against journalists who criticize him. Not to mention Justice Department staff who pursued litigation against him in the past (James Comey, Jack Smith)...

He is trying to rig the electoral process for the mid terms with his "Save America" Bill and is refusing to sign ANY other legislation until he gets his way, even bills that help his OWN supporters (and they still blindly follow him)

this is Kim Jong Un level stuff, and beyond simple narcissism

 

[Marc]

He is issuing subpoenas against journalists who criticize him. Not to mention Justice Department staff who pursued litigation against him in the past (James Comey, Jack Smith)...

and the law firms that were involved in his impeachments and courts cases outside of the political arena.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Leave it to the Beaverton to put the mood of the nation into words...

Canadians just so goddamn tired of this bullshit

CANADA - Canadians across the country have collectively unleashed a sigh of agonized frustration while simultaneously stating "Again with this bullshit?"

thebeaverton.com

The article doesn't even mention anyone's name even once, yet we all know who's being talked about.

Yep, pretty accurate! Anytime the administration brings out the rhetoric, it only sharpens our resolve. I don't even think they're capable of understanding what that is doing, as they refuse to acknowledge (not that they would, because they are oh so perfect) that it could be an issue. So they just keep piling on, making the same mistakes, then they act surprised when we defend ourselves. *Gasp!* " Oh why is this country aggrieved? Oh, no matter, I think I'll just stick my head in the sand til it passes"

 

[HIjol]

On Behalf of the 74,999,166 of us who did NOT vote for Trump in 2024, I apologize, unreservedly...

~~source; https://www.cfr.org/articles/2024-election-numbers

 

[Marc]

one of trump's minnions is claiming the latest round of tariffs has been in the works for sometime and the trade decifict is factor.

but is it or bullshit detectors going off from here to Nunavit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-tariffs-canada-jamieson-greer-senate-finance-9.7279285

 

[HIjol]

Gotta Ask...can ANYbody translate this for me?
I like to think I speak the English language, but...

""When I go to Dover I read charts on all of the young people, and some are unbelievable. Some, they've got a couple of little bad things put in. This is a son who is like a flawless, perfect person. His sheet read so beautifully."

 

[DEWLine]

"Don't try to make sense of me. I won't stand for it. Just, can you just throw your minds away and worship me forever, finally, please? <Anti-Life Equation here>" - the Vulgarian.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It's not coherent. It's what I'd call a stream of consciousness. And what does he even mean by charts? There's no context to what he says.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

On Behalf of the 74,999,166 of us who did NOT vote for Trump in 2024, I apologize, unreservedly...

~~source; https://www.cfr.org/articles/2024-election-numbers

its like what antics hijinks and shenanigans will the wwe hall of famer donnie j trump do next

 

[The Salt Umpire]

He's like John Gill, evil John Gill

I unfortunately can't embed it directly, but yesterday's Astronomy Picture of the Day was actually a video, and is a ~1 minute timelapse of the aurora australis from orbit. Here's the link, if you're interested:

APOD: 2026 July 13 – Auroras from Space

A different astronomy and space science related image is featured each day, along with a brief explanation.

apod.nasa.gov

I look at APOTD every morning.

 

[Avro Arrow]

So, the full text of the bridge agreement has now been released, and it seems to be, at first blush, that Carney's "clarifications" were not exactly true, and the initial read was the correct one (ie - we got hosed).

Gordie Howe Bridge deal released as Conservatives accuse Carney of lying

Amid conflicting messaging and questions surrounding the agreed-upon revenue sharing between Canada and the U.S., details of the deal to open the Gordie Howe International Bridge were released late Tuesday.

www.ctvnews.ca

Gordie Howe bridge revenue-sharing agreement appears to contradict Carney - National | Globalnews.ca

The federal government released the text of what it's calling an agreement in principle with the U.S. for the Gordie Howe International Bridge, including on revenue sharing.

globalnews.ca

On Behalf of the 74,999,166 of us who did NOT vote for Trump in 2024, I apologize, unreservedly...

~~source; https://www.cfr.org/articles/2024-election-numbers

Thank you. I know it's been super popular on the Canadian subreddits over the past year to hate on all Americans. But I personally think it's important to remember that there are millions of Americans who are just as appalled at what is going on as we are. Good people are watching their country being twisted into something they don't recognize. And I have a lot of sympathy for vulnerable groups who never wanted this regime, who are now forced to live under it, and have to fear for their very safety. So unlike a lot of Canadians on Reddit, I don't feel the need to alienate potential allies by spurning any apologies given in good faith.

The unfortunate part is, there are more of them then there are of you. 2.3 million more Americans voted for Trump than voted for Harris. And the galling part of those statistics you linked to is: not only did he win the popular vote, which he didn't in 2016, but he actually increased his vote total in each subsequent election. I know his second term has been much, much worse than his first... but his first wasn't exactly great, either. I just can't believe so many people lived through his first term, then thought, "yes, we need more of that."

So, unfortunately, I believe there has been a fundamental shift in the relationship between our two nations that isn't going to be immediately repaired when Trump eventually leaves office. We have seen your electorate elect someone like Trump twice, and there's no guarantee it won't happen again. Trump has basically destroyed the trust we once shared, and trust, once lost, is hard to win back. We don't necessarily look at the US the same way anymore. According to polling, Canadians now trust China more than they do the USA (source). So even with Trump gone, I don't necessarily see things going back to how they were between us for years afterwards. This could even be a generational rift. And yes, that is very sad.

I hope you are able to get your country back, before things get too much worse. Good luck on the midterms.

 

[Owain Taggart]

So, the full text of the bridge agreement has now been released, and it seems to be, at first blush, that Carney's "clarifications" were not exactly true, and the initial read was the correct one (ie - we got hosed).

I see this as a matter of interpretation. I don't think anything changed. Rather it was what more of a matter of clarity and omission. In the original release, there was confusion as to whether it included the tolls or not, whereas here it's been clarified to include the net proceeds from the tolls. Regardless of if the tolls would have been included or not, they're still net proceeds, and what we end up getting is a bridge that opens to begin making money instead of just sitting there closed due to obstruction. And I don't know about you, but I much prefer to see a bridge serve its intended purpose.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I don't think anything changed.

Sorry, I'm not really sure what you mean here? The articles do a pretty good job of laying out what has changed from the original 2012 agreement.

And I don't know about you, but I much prefer to see a bridge serve its intended purpose.

Fair enough. I guess it is up to each individual whether they think the concessions were worth it. Personally, I probably would have gambled on 4 months of no revenue for the opportunity to maybe get 100% of revenue as was originally agreed, rather than locking in now to 50% revenue for the next 15 years.

And unfortunately, giving him this win takes some political pressure off him and the Republicans for the midterms, whereas not giving him this win and keeping the pressure on might have been better for our national interest in the long run.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Sorry, I'm not really sure what you mean here? The articles do a pretty good job of laying out what has changed from the original 2012 agreement.

I should have clarified, so my mistake. I didn't consider the original 2012 agreement because obviously it's now invalidated. I merely meant that with the new agreement, between what Carney explained and the newly revealed document, that there isn't all that much of a discrepancy in what was being said. The one big difference was the omission of the tolls when Carney made his explanation.

Fair enough. I guess it is up to each individual whether they think the concessions were worth it. Personally, I probably would have gambled on 4 months of no revenue for the opportunity to maybe get 100% of revenue as was originally agreed, rather than locking in now to 50% revenue for the next 15 years.

Yeah, that's fair. But honestly, getting to an agreement with Numpty Dumpty, when his mind changes like the wind, is hard enough as it is. We managed to get a deal that pleased him, and he might yet change his mind again. The other option would have been to wait indefinitely, on a bridge that we paid for, and I don't know if the industries could wait it out that long. That is too much indecision for something that was built to ease traffic and trade. This is a bridge that will bring tons of commercial traffic across the border. All in all, I just prefer we get it over with and put it in the rearview mirror while we can.

And unfortunately, giving him this win takes some political pressure off him and the Republicans for the midterms, whereas not giving him this win and keeping the pressure on might have been better for our national interest in the long run.

I think the pressure is still there, actually. We're actively showing him that despite getting a deal, we're not celebrating the opening of the bridge together. It might not seem like much, but it does show that we're not bedfellows.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I merely meant that with the new agreement, between what Carney explained and the newly revealed document, that there isn't all that much of a discrepancy in what was being said. The one big difference was the omission of the tolls when Carney made his explanation.

I think the biggest difference between Carney’s explanation and the actual agreement is that he stated that the revenue splitting would be after our debt reduction and interest payments, which doesn’t seem to be true based on the text.

I think the pressure is still there, actually. We're actively showing him that despite getting a deal, we're not celebrating the opening of the bridge together. It might not seem like much, but it does show that we're not bedfellows.

My apologies, I probably wasn’t that clear here. I was referring to political pressure from within his own country, not directly from us. It was a fairly big political hot potato, at least around Michigan, and us coming to an agreement nullified that.

Speaking of Michigan, it looks like they got hosed too by their own federal government. Since our debt repayment will now take longer, the provision where Michigan will receive 50% of the toll revenues won’t kick in until much later too.

~~~~

Speaking of the bridge (haven’t been speaking of much else, I guess ), Carney says he “could have been clearer” when confronted about the discrepancy:

‘I should have been clearer’: PM Carney on explaining details of Gordie Howe Bridge deal

After days of conflicting messaging surrounding the Gordie Howe International Bridge deal, Mark Carney admits he could have better explained what was agreed upon between Canada and the U.S.

www.ctvnews.ca

Check out the Lutnick tweet in the article: “Before this deal we got NOTHING”… yeah, which matches the nothing you put into it. The entitlement is staggering.

 

[HIjol]

OK...so, here we go:

All of the below quotes are from the article @Avro Arrow posted and commented about, above;

My questions/comments are in bold italic.


~~"After days of conflicting messaging surrounding the Gordie Howe International Bridge deal, Prime Minister Mark Carney admits he could have better explained what was agreed upon between Canada and the U.S.

After digging in, a lot, I could not agree more!

“We get the revenues. Then the servicing of the costs of the bridge and paying the debt of the bridge, and then what’s left over, there’s a split of that for 15 years,” he said at the time. (Door Number 1)

According to the new “proposed agreement in principle” that will run parallel to the original Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement signed in 2012, Canada will share 50 per cent of net bridge and crossing-related revenues after operational costs with the U.S. for the first fifteen years. (Door Number 2)

'K...so these two things seem to be a bit at odds?...does Canada get what is behind Door Number 1 or Door Number 2...
Plus, what is this Political Magic that allows both of these things to "run parallel" and both to be true at once?...

"That change is a notable shift from the original deal, in which Canada agreed to front the $6.4 billion in construction costs and collect 100 per cent of tolls until it recoups its full investment. The agreement estimated that recoupment would take at least 50 years, after which Canada and Michigan would equally split toll revenues."

As I said above, a little at odds...

“The prime minister did an excellent job getting this deal done, getting $300 billion of goods across the border to create more opportunities, more jobs,” Ford said Thursday at the closing press conference of the First Ministers’ meeting in Charlottetown."

This, of course - true or not - having NOTHING to do with what was being asked/raised as concerns by "The Opposition"...

(Our Politicians do this here in the US also...NEVER answer the question being asked - just raise some other stuff and pretend that the stuff is the answer)

He also emphasized that the original agreement signed in 2012 “remains in place.”

I absolutely do not see how this would be possible, given how the two "agreements" are in direct contradiction to each other?...

 

[Marc]

Speaking of the bridge (haven’t been speaking of much else, I guess ), Carney says he “could have been clearer” when confronted about the discrepancy:

‘I should have been clearer’: PM Carney on explaining details of Gordie Howe Bridge deal

After days of conflicting messaging surrounding the Gordie Howe International Bridge deal, Mark Carney admits he could have better explained what was agreed upon between Canada and the U.S.

www.ctvnews.ca

Check out the Lutnick tweet in the article: “Before this deal we got NOTHING”… yeah, which matches the nothing you put into it. The entitlement is staggering.

just read the article.

Something's missing

that's right, no claims about mispeaking or the usuall bullshit we get from the politicians - Carney simply admits he should have done better.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think the biggest difference between Carney’s explanation and the actual agreement is that he stated that the revenue splitting would be after our debt reduction and interest payments, which doesn’t seem to be true based on the text.

But regardless, I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that these are still just net profits rather than total profits. I don't think a whole lot is going to change in that sense. The only other thing I can think of is that the American administration now has the freedom to change things up if needed, but that is more of a long-term thing.

My apologies, I probably wasn’t that clear here. I was referring to political pressure from within his own country, not directly from us. It was a fairly big political hot potato, at least around Michigan, and us coming to an agreement nullified that.

Ahh Ok. I guess we both got our wires crossed, so fair enough Although part of me feels like the political pressure coming from Michigan was likely enough for the administration to close in on a deal, even though in the end Michigan did not get a great deal either. Gee, the U.S Administration really is on a winning streak aren't they? Really great at making deals, they are.

Speaking of the bridge (haven’t been speaking of much else, I guess ), Carney says he “could have been clearer” when confronted about the discrepancy:

Yeah, I had a feeling that might have been the case., meanwhile PePe likes to try to make it sound like Carney's been lying the whole time. Easy to get caught up in that. But when you're confronted on the spot by reporters, I kind of feel like he was streamlining the answer to move it along.

Something's missing

that's right, no claims about mispeaking or the usuall bullshit we get from the politicians - Carney simply admits he should have done better.

Kind of refreshing to hear, isn't it? A politician admitting to their wrongs.

 

[Marc]

guess we'll need a court case, but on expect in the field of international trade law thinkings that while trump's latest tariffs have stronger legal base than the "liberation day" ones, they'd mostly like be tossed by the courts and that scotus would like decline to hear a trump appeal because the case would be similar to the previously tariffs one.

factors why they'd be tossed
* trump's points of complaint are covered in the CUSMA agreement which is he was instrumental in negotiating and signed off on.
* proving the Canadian actions are are discriminatory
* Canada's action is retalitory in response to U.S tarffs.

Trump’s new tariffs against Canada would likely be shot down in any court challenge, law experts say

Experts say Trump’s 50% levies are on firmer legal ground his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, but unlikely to survive a court challenge.

www.thestar.com

 

[Owain Taggart]

actors why they'd be tossed
* trump's points of complaint are covered in the CUSMA agreement which is he was instrumental in negotiating and signed off on.
* proving the Canadian actions are are discriminatory
* Canada's action is retalitory in response to U.S tarffs.

Not to mention the on-again-off again scenario we've been up against which itself could be seen as damaging to both sides of the border.

RE the tariffs, here's an interesting article on Bloomberg stating that the chasm in the GOP is growing, with an increasing number of Republican lawmakers pushing back on Trump's policies.

It ends by saying:

This latest game of chicken being played with Ottawa—to extract concessions over CUSMA talks—has pushed the American electorate past the brink, and it is Trump’s party—not Canada—that will end up paying a very heavy price.

In picking a fight with Canada, the president inadvertently struck a nerve at home, with crucial elections just a few months away. Americans, alongside Canadians, are ready to strike back.

Eric Ham: Trump’s latest tariff offensive has American lawmakers fuming

Washington political analyst Eric Ham says U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of 50% tariffs on Canadian goods has sparked widespread opposition from U.S. lawmakers, including Republicans, causing tensions that could impact upcoming elections and U.S.-Canada relations.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca