There’s more to it than that. In the event of a world wide shortage and Canada needs to reduce oil export to the US, to replace foreign oil imports for our domestic consumers, we’ll have to ration our own oil to maintain an equivalent reduction in US exports. In other words, we are bound to supply oil to the states even if we do not have enough for our selves. Reagan wasn’t stupid.
And the original source stands by its story.
As one pundit said about this, it’s hard to prove a negative to begin with, and if you think Obama would lie about this, you aren’t going to believe the denials (which the Embassy and Obama would have every reason to issue, no matter what really happened).
So it really comes down to who you believe.
Still don’t get it. China stops buying oil from Country X and buys from Canada. Right. How do “we” deliver the oil? I think there’s only 1 mainline heading to Vancouver and Washington state. It would have to be massively scaled up to begin to deliver the amounts currently directed east and south. Hell I’m not sure the Vancouver port is setup to handled massive oil delivery to tankers.
You are looking at the wrong port. Don’t look to Vancouver, try Prince Rupert. It is way closer to the oil sands than Vancouver. There’s been modern massive infrastructure developed to handle coal shipments from the Rocikies and is already putting through petroleum coke from the oil sands to Asia. The sail time to China is one day shorter from Prince Rupert than Vancouver as well.
The harbour at Prince Rupert is deep and the capacity to expand the port is enormous.
But my point is the infrastructure isn’t there now. If you’re telling the American’s “Screw you, we’re sending oil West!” its only a valid threat if you actually have the capability to move it west at the time.
Ignoring the fact that companies likely have all sorts of commitments to sell to various refineries despite what the federal government opts to do.
You are missing the point. The US interest regarding oil has more to do with long term security regarding their insatiatable appetite for oil. Canada is presently obligated to supply oil to the states for the duration of the agreement. No one has suggested that Canada immediately changes customers following the dissolution of NAFTA.
FYI, a (admittedly conservative) source claims that Obama’s talk with Canada is confirmed.
We’ll see how the claim shakes out.
You’re cite links to CTV as well a reputable source. Slam dunk in my opinion. Obama’s been caught lying to the people of Ohio.
Is there *nothing * he won’t stoop to? That’s just trying to steal the election, obviously.
Nobody cares. It seems the Obama supporters here want this thread to drop off the front page.
Slam dunk against both or just Obama in your opinion. It wasn’t just Alan Goolsbee who called our neighbors to the north. Clinton’s camp did the same thing.
Guess you should vote McCain then. At least he’s a consistent free trader. (-:
Just Obama for the moment. There’s no meat in the story on the accusation against Clinton.
Oh alright - just making sure we’re staying on task in this thread 
Lets see free trader. You guys are deep into the idea we have enemies due to our principals. Yet China who most of you see as an enemy and certainly not professing the principals we do,is making out like a bandit due to "free trade’. If you believe they are in principal enemies of America ,why do free trader want to make China the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. China is making inroads into many nations. They are into Africa without the horrible baggage that accompanies us.
We are beholden to China thanks to our making them the worlds industrial power. They will soon be the economic power in the world thanks to us. The cost for short term money grubbing could be huge. The world will change dramatically and we will be an ineffectual ex super power. So called free trade will be the reason why.
So let me get this straight… Your idea of good geopolitical and economic strategy is to cut the other countries in the world off from trade, so as to keep them poor and unable to provide goods and services to us? How humanitarian of you.
And is it your experience that poverty and desperation leads to good, peaceful neighbors?
The best chance for world peace is for China and India and Iran and everyone else to develop modern, high productivity economies. World wealth increases, and when countries have a lot to lose, and their people are relatively comfortable and happy, they don’t like going to war.
You seem to be laboring under the same misguided assumption that drives so much protectionism. You think that we’re playing a zero-sum game, where there’s a fixed amoount of wealth and we’re all scrambling to see who gets it. This is not the case at all. A wealthy China is a good thing for the world because a wealthy China brings more productivity to the world economy. As a species, we can afford more research, more diversity, more health care, higher environmental standards. A China that freely trades with us, and which clearly has a lot to offer us (because we buy a lot of it) is good for all of us.
Are they competitors? Damned straight they are. And if you let the market do its thing, we’ll compete right back just fine. Just as companies and individuals compete with each other every day for the things they want. Competition isn’t a bad thing. It helps bring focus and clarity. It forces people to try hard, work hard, and study hard and to be efficient and clever. And it replaces the tensions that can build between isolated countries that can lead to war - especially if one is kept much poorer than the other.
The U.S. isn’t going to compete on price for labor, nor should it. The U.S. economy is generally more productive, resourceful, and resilient than any other economy on the planet. The U.S’s comparative advantage isn’t in seamstresses, it’s in computer engineers and efficient manufacturing and advanced services and consulting and so forth. Very high value occupations. But there are clearly enough of the other kinds of jobs, because unemployment is still near historic lows (and please, no nonsense about how the rate is all artificial). The fact is, the United States is fully employed and in better shape to take advantage of the changing economy than any other country.
Have a little faith in your own country. Don’t be afraid of competition. Chinese people have a right to bring their goods to market as well. Even if they chooose not to adopt the same worker standards. If their comparative advantage is cheap labor, then that’s what they need to do to get a leg into world economy. As their wealth grows, their standards will change, just as they have in every other country as it joined the first world.
You get that from where. ? I think fair trade which was what was sold to us.,was to include higher wages and better environmental protection for the countries we included in our trade deals. None of that came to fruition. It was a giveaway of American jobs just like big businessman Perot said it would be. You guys swallow cliches and mantras and parrot them like they have meaning.
The employment rate is bullshit. Go to Ohio,Indiana and Michigan and tell us how low it is. The economy is in fearful condition. The low class jobs are gone. The middle class jobs are leaving at an alarming rate. The college jobs are on the way too. Programming,engineering ,medical.the list goes on. If they can do it for 10 % of our rate it is gone.
We are making China the strongest country in the world. They can hurt us any time they choose. They are getting stronger everyday as we get weaker. If you can not see that you have no credibility. We have done it to ourselves. And if you believe eventually we are going to be at odds with China ,how does making them richer and more powerful make any sense.?
I understand it is common for Democratic party candidates to go far left during the primaries, since they are appealing to a left wing audience, and then go back towards the center once the election starts, to appeal to the broader audience. Makes sense to me - that’s just prudent politiking.
You are aware that you have no free trade agreement with China, and that China has nothing to do with NAFTA, the ostensible subject of this thread, right?
Right?
Of course but it is cut from the same cloth, we are shipping jobs ,manufacturing and production abroad. NAFTA was the first step. The others followed. No one realized how quickly it became cheaper to bypass Mexico and find even cheaper places to go. Even India is bitching about their jobs(used to be our jobs) being outsourced to China and Korea. NAFTA was step one.
Jobs that can not be shipped abroad are being given to Mexican laborers. Construction ,service and food factory jobs can not be shipped abroad. So we ship the workers here,