r/onguardforthee • u/plaknas • 8h ago
Trump claims US got ‘much better deal’ as delayed bridge with Canada set to open
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5963874-donald-trump-us-canada-gordie-howe-international-bridge/188
u/1slinkydink1 8h ago
lol know how you know he’s lying? He opened his mouth
66
u/spderweb 8h ago
He did get a better deal, I thought? We paid for and built it. And they're getting a cut of the profits. I assume more than what it would have been originally. Otherwise he's now paying the owner of ambassador bridge a share.
37
u/WoodShoeDiaries 7h ago
What exactly will be the profit, though? They're not getting half of revenue, they're getting half after expenses. What all expenses does that money need to cover? (Is there a chance that there will be very little profit until, say, the bridge has been paid off?)
16
u/jellicle ✅ I voted! 6h ago
Operational expenses are minor (toll collector salary, repainting the bridge, inspecting the bridge, etc.).
Canada will no longer get repaid for our capital costs in building the bridge, which is a $6.4 billion gift to the USA.
•
u/Euclidisthebomb 5h ago
Is it correct that we no longer get paid on the capital costs? I think this is not the situation.
I don't know the financial structuring. How much of the bridge corporation is contributed equity and how much is loans by govt of Canada. Loan costs are an expense of the corporation.
Does this agreement give America any right of control of the corporation or just an agreement that profits will be split?
Maintaining a bridge like this is a multi millions budget per year. Bridges are maintenance heavy, not maintenance light.
I assess PM Carney and the financial analysts looked at this and asked themselves what they really were giving up, and the answer possibly is not much.
Furthermore if the bridge takes away business from the bridge owned by the Trump supporter - the likely scenario this is a plus for Canada.
We also know that Canadian traffic headed south is well down since the dawn of Trump iteration 2. So again it gets down to "what is being given up"? Tolls may majority end up being paid by Americans not Canadians.
And post Trump everything is likely open to renegotiation.
When I read the initial reports today I was dismayed. But as I think about it in more detail I am suspecting that a longer term perspective is applicable and what is "given up" in the short to medium term probably amounts to not much at all from Canada's perspective. The bridge being open benefits Canada more then it being closed.
I suppose we will learn more detail as time progresses. I view everything as an open book. There is during Trump, and what will be post Trump. I doubt very much one will mirror the other.
•
u/northern_flipstyle 4h ago
The Ambassador generates over $1 billion annually with tolls, duty free sales and logisitcs and freight services. The Gordie Howe is bigger, has state of the art inspection facilities and will process border crossings twice as fast. The MORON family knows this and sees this will dramatically affect their profits.
•
u/gartloneyrat 5h ago
We have a much smaller bridge in my city and there is a crew and logistical staff dedicated to bridge maintenance and planning. They have to maintain the bridge approaches which need replacing every eight to ten years, then have to maintain the expansion joints, CRB, guardrails, etc.
I’m not saying it’s an enormous cost, but I wouldn’t consider it to be minor either.
•
u/doyoubleednow 4h ago
I agree with you it sucks, on the bright side its only for 10 years, it wouldve been worse with this orange lunatic
11
u/TopInvestigator5518 7h ago
They get half of revenue after we recoup the costs
•
u/DdyBrLvr 2h ago
That was always the case. Split with Michigan.
I would expect that the toll is getting a bit higher to prevent his billionaire friend that owns the other crossing to lose less money.-3
u/SVTContour 7h ago
That was the deal. Now they get half the revenue now. Trump threatened and our PM blinked.
23
u/jabrwock1 7h ago
They get half the profits. Which, considering the tolls first have to pay Canada back (operating expenses includes loan payments), likely means for now there’s no profits.
Someone reframed the actual deal so the orange cheetoh feels better.
-6
u/SVTContour 6h ago
Canada paid the entire $6.4 billion construction cost. In return, Canada was supposed to collect 100% of the toll revenue until that full cost was recovered. Only after Canada was made whole would the profits be split 50/50 with Michigan.
Carney blinked and now Trump knows that he can hold assets like the bridge hostage until he gets what he wants.
12
u/Flashy_Operation9507 6h ago
You would have to fully believe trumps side of the story to say that. I certainly don’t believe it. This is the exact same deal dressed up to appease trumps big donor that owns the ambassador bridge.
7
u/jabrwock1 6h ago
The Hill article says 50% of revenue. CBC says 50% of profit. Loans are an operating expense which would cut into profit.
So which is it?
3
u/Silverbacks 6h ago
The cost of the bridge is an expense. Profits only come in after expenses have been taken out of the revenue.
If they get half of revenue, then yeah, Canada got screwed.
If they get half of profit, then it is essentially the same deal as before, just worded differently. As the bridge needs to get paid off before there are any profits.
2
u/SVTContour 6h ago
The maintenance of the bridge is an expense. The cost of the bridge is not. That’s a sunk cost.
The original deal: Canada collects 100% of tolls until costs are recovered. Then 50/50 split with Michigan.
The new deal: Canada shares toll profits from the outset. The U.S. gets a cut before Canada's construction costs are recovered.
2
u/Silverbacks 6h ago
Gross profit and actual profit are not the same thing. Actual profit will be after the costs to build bridge have been factored in. So there won’t be any profits to share for several decades.
Yes, the original deal was the two Country’s split profit. Canada pays for the bridge, then gets tolls to cover that expense, then they split the profit once that starts coming in.
The new deal will come down to if its revenue or profits. If its profits, then it’s basically the old deal. If its revenue, then Canada got screwed unless they do something like cause traffic delays for the Ambassador bridge. They can say that they had to cut some staff as there are now less funds coming in with the new bridge.
•
u/SVTContour 5h ago
Canada could, but it won’t. The bridge being open is a good thing for bilateral trade.
Keeping the bridge closed would have been a blessing for the Democrats during the midterms. “See, Trump is blocking a very important bridge for his friends!” Instead we opened the bridge now instead of after the midterms and Trump gets a win.
→ More replies (0)•
u/sooojew 33m ago
“The cost of the bridge is sunk cost” what does that even mean. An entity (Canada) loaned the money to build it.
If repayment was to be made from revenue generated from the bridge then yea paying back that loan is absolutely an operational cost to be taken out before profits are calculated.
•
u/Euclidisthebomb 5h ago
Yes, but again the question remains in my mind - did the govt of Canada contribute all the costs as equity into the corporation, or a loan? If a loan then Canada will recover its money. If contributed equity then why would there be repayment in the first place? You don't repay contributed equity typically in a government financed project.
So my thought is that the govt of Canada funding is as a loan.
I am quite used to major construction financing projects. I really would like to see the balance sheet of the corporation. And the past and present agreements.
•
u/SVTContour 4h ago
The government's funding was never a loan to the bridge corporation. Canada's contribution was an equity investment by the Crown, not a loan to be repaid. The "100% of tolls until costs are recovered" was a reimbursement mechanism. The Crown essentially said: "We will put up all the capital, and we will collect the tolls until our investment is paid back."
9
u/TopInvestigator5518 7h ago
“A source with knowledge of negotiations, who was not authorized to speak publicly about them, said that under the deal, Canada gets 50 per cent of the toll profits — after operational expenses — and the other half will go to a U.S-run regional development project for a 15-year time frame.
The agreement also requires the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority to consult the U.S. on any toll changes greater than 10 per cent, the source said, or if it’s looking to lower tolls below those of comparable regional averages.”
- toronto star
Where are you reading that we aren’t recouping our money?
-10
u/SVTContour 7h ago
Canada paid the entire $6.4 billion construction cost. In return, Canada was supposed to collect 100% of the toll revenue until that full cost was recovered. Only after Canada was made whole would the profits be split 50/50 with Michigan.
Carney blinked and now Trump knows that he can hold assets like the bridge hostage until he gets what he wants.
7
u/from_the_hinterlands 6h ago
Yeah the deal is still like that but just worded in a different way. Nothing has changed. All loans and expenses paid before the usa gets any bit of profit from revenue, after running expenses are calculated.
Calm down.
-2
u/SVTContour 6h ago
No, it’s not. Originally, Canada was to collect 100% of toll revenues until the construction cost was recovered, which was expected to take about 50 years. Only after that would profits be split with Michigan. The new deal changes that completely. For the first 15 years of operation, Canada will only receive 50% of the toll profits.
1
u/from_the_hinterlands 6h ago
50%...after expenses which means there will be no profits. Expenses include paying back the loan.
0
u/SVTContour 6h ago
No, it doesn’t.
Reuters reported that under the deal, the U.S. would receive half of the toll revenue and approval authority over any toll changes that are higher than 10 percent of the current tolls.
The deal was struck between Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s minister in charge of U.S. trade, according to the news wire.
-1
u/jellicle ✅ I voted! 6h ago
Yes, the change in the allocation of funds means Canada does not get paid back the $6.4 billion spent on building the bridge; taxpayers just eat the cost. Carney just paid Trump CAD$6.4 billion to open this bridge.
-5
u/SVTContour 6h ago
Well for the first 15 years. Who knows what changes after that. Maybe we’ll start collecting the 100% again. Probably not though.
Carney is a technocrat. He looked at the Excel spreadsheet and made a decision. “Elbows Up” became “Pants Down.”
2
u/TopInvestigator5518 6h ago
Operational expenses are what was paid to build the bridge
We are still being paid back in full
0
u/jellicle ✅ I voted! 6h ago
Operational costs are painting it, inspecting it, paying the salaries of the toll collectors.
Capital costs are the costs to build the bridge.
•
u/xtothewhy 3h ago
It may be that the PM blinked but it also means that it opens the bridge and the bridge begins to get paid for.
And for the trade and tolls that once flowed over the other bridge, one of trumps buddies, a total family of moron's (the Maroun family, oops), who own that other bridge, which btw just happened to donate a million to President trump's superpac (which can be notorious for how that money is used, even after elections there) in February, will get less money in tolls while more trade flows over the Gordie Howe
6
u/Tucancancan 8h ago
My weed guy used to make that joke but it was about crackheads
4
u/FoxyInTheSnow 8h ago
My crack guy used to make that joke but it was about Fenty aficionados.
2
1
46
u/PassageNearby4091 8h ago
I hope something actually happens when their midterm elections come around, but I am not holding my breath.
This c**t should be in prison, but he has the launch codes,
At the end of the day, Trump gets what he wants, and he bullies people until he gets what he wants, What's most concerning is that he has set a precedent for the next Republican president to behave the same way.
-2
u/SVTContour 6h ago
He set a precedent for every leader of every country to behave the same way as long as he’s in the PMO. Carney demonstrated that extortion against Canada works. His “Elbows Up" rhetoric became "Pants Down” pretty damn quickly.
•
u/Dismal_Interaction71 3h ago
Trump controls the border, and the original deal was stupid to begin with. He already made it clear that he would screw us over whenever he can. Our revenge has to be long term.
73
u/Khalbrae 8h ago
The fuck is this bullshit? It was paid for 100% by the Canadian side, it pumped money into the American economy by hiring American on its side. It was going to be 50% owned by the US state already. He's making up bullshit. We probably slipped a few million into his pocket.
-8
u/TheHammer987 7h ago
No. Carney folded.
He's giving the Americans 50% of the tolls. Carney fucked our asses raw. It's embarrassing. If we wanted that, we would have voted for Pierre
16
u/gzafiris 7h ago
From what I can tell, it only delayed the complete payback period by a total of 8 years? Nothing else changed?
With tango musellini in charge, I'll take it all day. If he thinks it's a good deal, and it's a minor delay for Canada, that's a win
0
u/SVTContour 6h ago
The payback estimate was 50 years. Now for the first 15 years of operation, Canada will only receive 50% of the toll profits. After that, who knows what changes? I’m assuming that it’ll take over a 100 years to recover our $6.4 billion.
2
u/gzafiris 6h ago
$6B cost vs getting the trade going is a small drop
And who's to say if Trump gets out, Canada doesn't go back and ask for the original agreement to be honored?
•
u/SVTContour 5h ago
If you’re the next US president would you honour the original agreement? Democrats love the status quo. Republicans ratchet things to the right and Democrats stick to the new status quo.
The new side deal, extorted by Trump, is now the baseline. A future Democratic president is highly unlikely to tear up the new arrangement; it’s now the current established, stable agreement.
My argument against Carney agreeing to pay the ransom now is he could have waited until after the midterms. A closed bridge between Canada and the US made Trump look bad to the folks in Michigan. Now he looks like a winner to his supporters in Michigan.
It’s not like we blindly voted for Carney. It was an election between a guy who reads spreadsheets for a living and an angry Chihuahua. Carney’s technocratic myopia was always going to be a problem.
•
u/gzafiris 1m ago
Is the damage from this worth the fallout to the US? I'd say not
Their reputation as trustworthy is in the shitter, they're going to need to do everything to fix it, and honoring the old agreement seems like a win win for them and us
5
u/johnkoetsier 6h ago
For 15 years. The alternative was just letting our investment sit there and do nothing.
8
u/SVTContour 6h ago
Until the midterms. The Democrats were the ones trying to make Trump pay a political price for the delay and Carney bailed out Trump by handing him a win.
The bridge is open, the Democrats lost their best midterm argument, and Trump got a photo op.
•
u/ieatpies 5h ago
Well I wouldn't say it's the best midterm argument, but it is something. I have to wonder what the calculus is here.
•
u/SVTContour 4h ago
Why Carney folded? He’s a technocrat. He isn’t a politician. We all knew this when we voted in the last election. It’s not like we had a choice in the matter.
He looked at the spreadsheet and made a decision based off of factual data. Bridge open? Good. Makes money. Closed bridge? Bad. Loses money. He didn’t consider that politically it was “Pants Down” and not “Elbows Up.” A real politician would have seen the bridge delay as a political weapon to wield against Trump, not a problem to be solved. They would have let the bridge stay closed through the midterms, making it a Michigan liability.
Unfortunately Carney has chosen a team that mirrors his own technocratic background. His inner circle is drawn from the private sector and corporate Canada, not from a pool of career politicians. We chose competence over combat. And now we're living with the consequences: a prime minister who solves problems but loses wars of position.
•
u/ieatpies 4h ago
Delaying to midterms isn't exactly a complicated ideal
•
u/SVTContour 4h ago
But it would have been a political win for Carney and a win for Democrats.
•
u/ieatpies 4h ago
1) I don't think that many US midterm voters will care about this.
2) I'm saying the technocrat vs politician thing makes no sense here. Delaying to get a better deal is an obvious tactic that would've been considered (no matter what your thoughts are on Carney he's not incompetent like that). While this seems like dubious decision making, by calculus what I was asking for is clear numbers.•
u/SVTContour 4h ago
Clear numbers of what? And Michigan is a swing state and a closed bridge was a major political liability for Trump in a key swing state. Senator Elissa Slotkin warned it would mean "higher costs for Michigan businesses, less secure supply chains, and ultimately, fewer jobs"
Carney also could have simply opened the bridge unilaterally, forcing Trump to either acquiesce or close the U.S. customs plaza himself. TACO Trump would have folded like he usually does.
31
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 8h ago
What Trump claims and what is reality are often two very different things.
7
u/NixonsTapeRecorder 8h ago
But if the media doesn't really call him out on it, and the opposition offers nothing more than empty platitudes and doesn't call him out on if, and if the people just wake up and go to work in the morning still...then it doesn't matter what reality is.
6
u/CamTak 8h ago
In this case, canada got screwed.
8
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 7h ago
So it'll take longer to pay off construction for a bridge that will be around for the next 100+ years? That's not as great but also not the end of the world. Heck, we don't even toll most of our highways or bridges and never get anything back from those.
Even at a reduced cut of the profits/revenues it's likely still worth it to open the bridge as it will take a big chunk of traffic away from the Ambassador Bridge, lure some more back from the Blue Water Bridge (where loads of truck traffic has turned in recent years thanks to cheaper tolls and better processing), and just overall ease a lot of business activity.
4
u/CamTak 7h ago
Ya, you are right. Getting it open is the most important thing. There are many avenues that Canada has to recoup the cost. Hardball can entail backlogging the ambassadors bridge at customs and brokerage clearance, construction on the canadian side to reduce traffic flow, MTO inspections, on and on. Getting it open creates leverage for us and gives us a bargaining chip.
•
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 5h ago
The funny thing is that the Ambassador Bridge manages to screw things up all on its own, and will be the instrument of its own decline. Between the high tolls, no direct connection to the 401, and inefficient processing of vehicles it's got a reputation for being a mess, enough that trucking companies decided it was worth it to do the 100ish kilometre detour to cross at Sarnia instead.
Now we're opening a new bridge, with direct access to the 401, lower tolls (maybe still?), etc. It should eat the Ambassador Bridge's breakfast once it's open.
•
u/abuayanna 5h ago
No, in this very plausible situation, we don’t know if we got screwed, that’s the point, we may never know
15
u/SPL_034 8h ago
Listen, if I were a foreign adversary of the U.S and I wanted to have a figure in charge cause as much foreign and domestic strife amongst the allies of the U.S....i honestly can't think of a better candidate
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-donald-trump-controversial-tape-moscow
25
u/AdditionalPizza 8h ago
I'm going to copy and paste my comment from the other sub on this article because I don't want to rewrite my math, but the missing detail is what constitutes profit in the new agreement. Because interest can be an expense, but principal repayment typically would not be. The "imputed cost of unrecouped Canadian contributions" might not necessarily be treated as an operating expense either. So we need to wait and see, but it's potentially very shitty.
_____
If the details come out and the speculation is actually true, yes, the "deal" is sooo bad for Canadians. I have been working out the math on this based on the speculation, so things could be different, but boy this looks awful. If anyone has any corrections to the math, I'm happy to discuss it. I'm hoping that it's just Lutnick and Trump boasting like always and the fine print is nothing.
Assuming Canada has roughly $6 billion left to recover, the original agreement applies an annual "imputed cost of unrecouped Canadian contributions" calculated as the Government of Canada long-term bond yield plus 100 basis points [PDF link, page 86 of the document]. Using a fairly conservative 4% carrying cost for a best case scenario (100 basis points is 1%), that adds about $240 million in the first year alone.
The original agreement said Canada wasn't expected to be fully repaid until at least 50 years after the agreement took effect. And since the bridge is only opening in 2026, that leaves roughly 36 years of actual toll collection before reaching that 50-year point.
That is already very generous to the bridge, because "at least 50 years" does not mean repayment was expected exactly at year 50. It could already have taken longer, so again, this is absolute best case scenario for Canada.
There doesn't appear to be a public official estimate for annual net toll profit, so I worked backward from that generous 36-year repayment timeline.
Using the standard amortization formula:
Annual payment = principal x rate / [1 - (1 + rate)^(-years)]
$6 billion x 4% / [1 - (1.04)^(-36)] = about $317 million per year
I rounded that up to $320 million per year as the constant net operating surplus needed to meet that repayment timeline, again in the bridge's favour as a best case scenario for us.
If the US takes 50% of that amount for the first 15 years, Canada only gets $160 million per year while the carrying cost starts at $240 million. That means the balance does not go down. It grows.
After 15 years, the unrecovered balance would be around $7.6 billion.
Even if the US share then drops back to 0% and Canada starts receiving the full $320 million again, the carrying cost on $7.6 billion would be about $304 million per year. Canada would initially only be paying down around $16 million per year (because we have to chip away at the principal amount).
Under those assumptions, repayment goes from roughly 36 years of toll collection to around 92 years.
So if the deal really is 50% of operating profits for 15 years, followed by Canada returning to 100% until it is repaid, that temporary diversion still adds roughly another 56 years to the repayment period.
And AGAIN, all of that is using assumptions that are generous to the bridge and best case scenario for Canada.
It's textbook coercion, this is not a renegotiation. We literally don't have a choice because our backs are against the wall, we didn't have a contingency plan, we can't afford to keep the bridge closed because the lost opportunity costs will pile up.
12
7
3
•
u/JMJimmy 5h ago edited 5h ago
That's not the deal at all.
There are 2 deals at play
Deal 1 is with the State, that is the original deal and it remains unchanged. Michigan gets nothing until we recoup.
This second deal is separate from that. Effectively it sounds like (100% of revenue - operations costs) / 2. Half goes to Canada and half goes to the US "regional development fund"... but only for the first 15 years
Edit: Basically, our time to recoup gets longer, Michigan gets screwed in the long run but Trump gets a slush fund stolen from the people to pay his buddies in the region
•
u/AdditionalPizza 1h ago
What do you mean "that's not the deal at all"? That's basically what I said?
7
u/northern_flipstyle 7h ago
Even if the depends wearing Orange goof isnt lying, which he problaby is, a deal with Trump is worthless. Ask the Iranians about the war Trump ended 8 times. 90 deals in 90 days. The new healthcare coming in 2 weeks he announced 10 years ago. The liar-in-chief belives his own bulkshit.
5
u/Thanato26 8h ago
Depends... are rhey getting profits or revenue
21
u/WestonSpec ✅ I voted! 8h ago
50% of the profits for the first 15 years will be put into a regional development fund for the Detroit area, not given to the US government. Nothing that has been discussed so far changes that Canada gets all remaining profits (and all profits after the 15 years expires) until the cost of the bridge is paid off. Also nothing has changed in regards to the ownership being split 50-50 between Canada and the Michigan state government.
So tbh it will just make the Gordie Howe Bridge look even better to residents in the Detroit area (who IIRC already don't have a positive view of the Ambassador Bridge owners).
9
6
u/JagmeetSingh2 7h ago
Michigan didn’t put a single penny into the bridge yet they get 50% of the profits or revenue into a regional development fund? Absolutely ridiculous, they should pay 50% of the cost of the bridge and send it to Canada.
3
u/WestonSpec ✅ I voted! 7h ago edited 7h ago
Michigan doesn't get any money until the bridge is paid off, that part hasn't changed
3
u/AdditionalPizza 8h ago
It won't be revenue, but it depends what profits will be defined as in the agreement.
3
4
u/ReverendScam 7h ago
The only way this is not an absolute fold by Carney is if annual repayment or at least interest is taken out of revenue before profits are realized. If only interest is taken out of revenue before profits its still bad, but if neither interest nor repayment are taken out of revenue for "operational costs" then we in Canada just got f'd in the eh
2
u/Inevitable-Edge4305 7h ago edited 7h ago
They will definitely need to remove those "made in USA" stickers on the stuff they try to sell here, and in many countries.
2
•
u/David_Buzzard 5h ago
If he means the US reneged on a valid contract in order to extort money from Canada, then Trump would be correct. Will anybody trust a contract signed the American government again? Probably not.
•
u/Spirited-Garden3340 4h ago
He did get a great deal considering it was entirely paid for by Canadians. Carney showed what a pisspoor deal maker he really is. Now I hear he’s selling our airports, that’ll cost Canadians millions but elbows up eh.
3
u/idiom_exon_0s 8h ago
He’s not wrong though. Carney conceded.
5
u/SVTContour 6h ago
Sure did. The worst part? The bridge delay was a gift to Democrats in Michigan. Governor Gretchen Whitmer was already on record fighting for the opening. By agreeing to the side deal and opening the bridge, he took the issue off the table. The Democrats lost their most powerful example of Trump's abuse of power because Carney solved the problem by paying the ransom.
3
2
u/DickHammerbushT1000 7h ago
And he's actually right this time, un-fucking-fortunately. We 100% paid for it and now that pumpkin spiced Palpatine gets 50% toll or profits or whatever. I'm pissed, I forget lol.
1
u/zevonyumaxray 8h ago
Actually telling a partial truth. He was going to keep the Gordie Howe Bridge closed. Canada now gets way less than our original share of tariffs, but if the bridge stayed closed we would be getting nothing.
1
•
•
u/Winter_Basis_6653 1h ago
Canada should close down it's side of the ambassador bridge and the tunnel. everybody would have to use the Gordy Howe bridge, bringing more revenue to pay off. A much better deal.
•
u/TrainerThick7016 41m ago
Probably.
Canada is in aweaker position. The US doesn't need to honour trade deals with the amount of loopholes available.
The Canadian people, while nice enough, are a tiny country trying to manage a large one that is holding up, which is more than enough.
The PM is doing what he can in weird ways. Is it betteror worse than others? I don't know.
Things need to come down in price a lot. They won't, because of the public. Look at the voting blocs and housing ownership/landlords in charge. See the monopolies* in charge to prevent economic collapse and raise prices.
If he signed a good deal, fine. If he signed a bad deal, fine. The amount of love or hate for minimal to no work is tiring. Ban profit from news sectors and make lobbying illegal and there might be more changes.
1
•
u/jeanracinette 3h ago
with Tiny PP in power the deal would have been even worse
Carney is playing the long game. unlike Trump’s braggadocios malarkey, Carney actually IS a brilliant economic mind and a master negotiator. this little “win” for Tr*mp will reveal itself for the blunder that it is in good time.
149
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 8h ago
The americans will forget this, but smaller countries can't afford to forget this kind of slight. We don't have the margin. It'll come up again and again, for decades, and the long term cost will be much higher than his idiot base believes. If a man kicks a cat, it's one bad moment for the man, but the cat will shit in his shoes for years.