Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Once again, we're in this weird situation where you admit to knowing nothing about the situation, but apparently enough to tell me I'm wrong even though I know about it and was the one who brought it up.I mean... Now you're just making stuff up. For all we know there could be dividends being paid to this day in the form of increased exports. Who knows.
I knew nothing about this deal until today, but it can't be "So the US got nothing. Nothing. Trump got duped" and then minutes later countries bought more for a couple of years and I'm a fool who got snookered. This does appear to be what I referenced earlier, which is you opposing basically anything he does or supports. Your sources seem sketchy in this case, also.
Humiliated? You're the one who said "nothing" and when I provided a link showing a reported 181% increase, you changed your position from nothing to maybe an increase for couple years. That would mean his actions had an impact even if it wasn't directly with the EU.Once again, we're in this weird situation where you admit to knowing nothing about the situation, but apparently enough to tell me I'm wrong even though I know about it and was the one who brought it up.
Let me make this simple for you. The. EU. Does. Not. Buy. LNG. It. Plays. No. Role.
![]()
EU’s opening bid to avoid Trump’s tariffs: We could buy more American gas
Brussels hopes to avoid trade war with the Republican president-elect.www.politico.eu
"During the first Trump term, Juncker avoided more tariffs by assuring the U.S. president that Europe would facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas (and more American soybeans.) In fact, the European Commission has no real power in determining European companies' purchases of LNG and soybeans, but Trump was happy to accept the political theater of parading data that European purchases were going up."
"Laurent Ruseckas, executive director for gas markets at commodities giant S&P Global, said any such deal on fossil fuels was likely to be more about politics than energy.
“The EU doesn't buy LNG — there's a global LNG market and LNG buyers have/ their own contracts,” he said. “It's certainly possible to do a memorandum of understanding to talk about increasing purchases but ultimately in the past that's been a way to put a political wrapper around something that was delivered by the market. And the EU is buying as much LNG currently as the market needs.”
Is Laurent Ruseckas, executive director for gas markets at S&P Global, a "sketchy source"?
Don't you get tired of being humiliated when arguing with me? You think that I post shit I know nothing about, because that's what you do, but in fact I very rarely do anything like that.
Now let's talk about who is the #1 importer of American goods? Yup, you guessed it - Sylvester Stallone... (obligatory Canadian reference)Moving my posts off the first 100 days thread to here:
#1 export from Canada to US: crude oil. I assume Americans love paying more to put gas in their cars. Speaking of cars. #2 export. What's a 25% tariff on your Canadian built Ford?
Canada and Mexico have 57 days to “comply” with Our Dear Leader’s demands to avoid these tariffs. They’ll both tighten their borders to avoid the tariffs. USA wins.To all the Trump voters here who were claiming Trump would have TARGETED Tariffs (emphasis on “targeted” which is supposed to make them more palatable), are tariffs on everything from Canada, Mexico, and China “targeted?”
Is that what you were imagining, or is it more likely that you will claim that, yes, tariffs on anything and everything from those countries is what you meant by “targeted.”
I’m assuming that you are being sarcastic.Canada and Mexico have 57 days to “comply” with Our Dear Leader’s demands to avoid these tariffs. They’ll both tighten their borders to avoid the tariffs. USA wins.
Even if serious, he is onto something — it is quite possible that this is a performative threat that can be solved by making performative genuflection to Trump before he is inaugurated. Trump will happily pretend he’s proven who's the boss and stopped fentanyl and government backed immigration to the U.S. of Canada and Mexico just say they are doing something.I’m assuming that you are being sarcastic.
I agree with the performative part, because it seems unlikely to me that illegal immigration and the fentanyl problems are going to be solved in 60 days.Even if serious, he is onto something — it is quite possible that this is a performative threat that can be solved by making performative genuflection to Trump before he is inaugurated. Trump will happily pretend he’s proven who's the boss and stopped fentanyl and government backed immigration to the U.S. of Canada and Mexico just say they are doing something.
OTOH, I don’t think Trump can put blanket tariffs on Mexico or Canada anyway under the USMCA. That is a feature of the amended version of NAFTA that he loves to promote as some great improvement over NAFTA (though it was really the same deal with a few tweaks and the exemptions from tariffs was also a feature of NAFTA).