They desperately want to flood our protected markets and crash our economy and are pissed we aren’t letting them - hence the threats. Literally every interaction we have had with the Donald government has been a goddamn threat. Let us crush your local production, let us have your resources, let us have the Arctic, etc etc

I think this argument is missing the bigger picture. Trade isn’t some one-sided plot by the U.S. to "take over" Canada—it’s about negotiations, and sometimes, yes, that includes pressure tactics. But the real issue here isn’t some grand conspiracy to flood our markets and crash our economy. It’s that the U.S. often pushes for one-sided trade deals that benefit them more than us, and we push back. That’s not an attack—it’s just how trade disputes work.

The real question is: why should Canada keep such heavily protected markets in sectors like dairy and telecommunications while expecting full access to the U.S. market? Competition is a good thing—it leads to lower prices and better services. Imagine getting European cheeses at a fraction of the cost or finally having real telecom competition. If the U.S. is willing to open its markets to our regional airliners, our softwood lumber, and other key exports, why wouldn’t we negotiate on equal footing?

The problem isn't trade itself—it’s unfair trade. If the U.S. wants access to our markets, we should be getting equivalent access to theirs. That’s the real fight here. Instead of seeing this as a U.S. plot to crush Canada, we should be focused on securing a deal that works both ways—whether that means better market access, fairer tariffs, or even things like freer movement of citizens across borders.

The goal should be fair trade, not a lopsided deal where one side wins at the expense of the other.