rangerx

Of course. As a Canadian, it sounds odd when visiting Americans refer to our first nations as native Americans. Technically anyone born in the USA is a native American. Captializing the word native suggests American origin. The term Indian was used for centuries, although technically not from India. However, if the proto-Polynesian theory is true, then being of the Indies would be correct. I'm merely being pedantic. Moving forward, there's also the suggestion Chinese (and other Oriental races) as mariners visited North America before Europeans and invariably mixed into the populations. Therefore genetics cannot be accurately linked to the land bridge theory. http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/03/Did-Chinese-Discover-British-Columbia/ I was on the UASBC expedition when the pot was revealed. I also know the owner of vessel the "Beaufort Sea", who discovered the shards in his net. As to the former, the story has no credibility because marine growth on the object was inconsistent with the in situ description by the finder. And the latter, artifacts dragged from the sea floor do not necessarily imply a timeline. It's possible they may have been jettisoned from any vessel at any subsequent time. Land based archaeology has not confirmed a proto-Polynesian connection to the people of Haida Gwaii. Much of it is speculation based upon physical features. Natives from HG appear East Indian, where mainland natives appear Mongolian (for all that's worth) There is the theory however, a portion of Vancouver Island, Brooks Peninsula and perhaps Haida Gwaii (far offshore from mainland BC) were a glacial refugium. If it's true and there were people there all along, it's not known what their genetic origin would be. So all in all, it's still very confusing, but interesting nonetheless.

America as we know it was not described as such until the 1400's. Aboriginal is more correct term than Native American, after all today's Canadian first nations are not and never have been American. That said, the land bridge theory is not exclusive to the migration. In fact, there's a theory some groups, namely Haida Gwaii on Canada's Queen Charlotte Islands were proto-Polynesian, having arrived by boat 14,000 years ago.

So, no wall, no special prosecutor, no mass deportations, Obamacare stays and NAFTA stands. America has chosen which Manhattan liberal will run the country. just saying...

Totally agree. The underlying is a license to pollute.

I did that and yes, there are many. Most were a matter of course and others to reflect changing times. That's a far cry from scrapping the deal then renegotiating it from an America first standpoint, which is what Trump proposed to do. So at the end of the day, it's still a broken promise. Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" in every stump speech. "I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don't mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better," Trump said in Pennsylvania. "If Canada and Mexico do not agree to renegotiate the pact, America intends to withdraw from the deal." "They're so used to having their own way," Trump said of America's neighbors. "Not with Trump. They won't have their own way ... NAFTA was the worst trade deal in the history -- it's, like, the history -- of this country." Trump deliberately tied this to Hillary, as though she were some svengali to the administration of her husband, President Bill Clinton, as he called NAFTA one of the "worst legacies" of the Clinton years. It's dog whistle politics, a majority of Americans fell for it. So for the sake of discussion, ... just exactly which clauses were a disaster for America? If they exist, were they inevitable and merely excuses after the fact? Do they truly rise to level of "disaster" or just grasping at straws?

It shouldn't linger. It must be repudiated, promptly. Otherwise it appears tolerated or at the very least indifferent. Neocons expect that from otherwise peaceful Muslims, blacks, first nations et al, why not themselves?

Probably CGI. Despite what most people are led to believe, they've done good work. If anything, America probably did her a favor.

It didn't stop the racism though. Every election with have it's sore losers, but the sheer volume sore winners in this cycle in this cycle is glaringly obvious. One contributor in this thread already had a thread locked because of it. There's also a new form of bigotry resulting from this... the marginalization of liberals. That includes otherwise moderate conservatives. Simply because Trump became president, does not automatically make neoconservative falsehoods true, so long as he's in office.

It's no secret, gun nuts had their plan for violent armed protests had Hillary won. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?_r=0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-militia-idUSKBN12X11R http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/28/donald-trump-supporters-warn-of-another-revolutionary-war-if-hil/

I think none. The original agreement several took years. MigL makes a good point. There's nothing in there to be renegotiated. It was a political talking point for Trump (the first words out of his mouth) to bilk workers from the mid-west into voting for him. And to slight Mexico. It put Canada needlessly at risk, though the DOW bounced back. The credit goes to Obama for that. That's what a real leader does. Had Trump lost and contested, it would have caused serious damage. A broken promise. They'll remember that in 2020.

Yes. Trudeau is open to discussion, but don't hold your breath that any new deal will be struck, no less from an "America first" standpoint. While I doubt Trump would attempt to remove the intellectual property rights, he might try to remove the environmental controls. Whether America likes it or not, Canada is a member of the Paris Agreement and Trudeau was given the mandate in his election to office. Canada will never allow it to be tabled unless it comes from Canadians themselves, not foreign noise makers. That brings us to agriculture. From the outset, agriculture was (and still remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA. As little as Americans would like to admit, agriculture in the United States is highly socialized. The government subsidizes the industry broadly, by providing public lands to farming and ranching. Additionally, corn production is highly subsidized. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods. It's not the only thing that's highly subsidized in the USA either. The National Hockey League, for example. Canadian governments have no involvement in the promotion of the product nor the provision of funds for stadiums. That's not the case in the USA, where local or state government are often it's greatest contributor. Then there's softwood lumber. For Canadians, it's America's glowing double standard, guaranteed to rear it's ugly head and a will be a great peril for Trump from the outset. Up until 2012, the USA applied counter-veil duties on lumber imports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute Having endured this acrimony through the entire trade negotiation process and for years thereafter, it's unlikely Canada with sit down to negotiations with the same or similar "bad faith" policies from America on the table.

One of Trump's primary platforms is to abolish NAFTA. Renegotiate the deal. Is reneging without it's penalties? Is putting "America first" a good faith bargaining position? Is being cutting off from oil, hydro power, wood and water negotiating from a position of strength? Why should sovereign countries like Canada or Mexico be obligated to negotiate, no less litigate or agree to anything? Trump wants to put a 35% tax on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada. Why wouldn't Canada and Mexico will reinstate pre-NAFTA counter-veil duties in response?

Gloating at neo-fascism. Pathetic, really. No less at a time when we're compelled to remember those who died fighting it.

Your words, not mine. Do not put your lies in my mouth.

The same people that call themselves pro-life are the same people who will let you die if you cannot afford health insurance. Also, the same group derides any level of government interference in our lifestyles, yet insist that same government legislate and detain women as incubators for the state. Good point.

Actually, it's about 1 in 2 your voice will be heard.

I had that issue with a palm drive (can't recall the manufacturer). When removed, the disk formatted normally and I use it in another computer. Every other drive I've attached to it booted up with 2 drives, a CD ROM drive. Similar to your issue, which I'm certain is a hard coded overlay.

That's right. And unfettered access to assault weapons, religious ideologies instilled into government and women subjected to incubators for the state. Like Republicans.

Yeah, she'll have us all emailing Benghazi before long.

Yes, sir. Just like the pre-2000 era, when both Canada and USA impose high counter-veil duties. USA agriculture is highly subsidized and with the loss of trade will need more subsidy. No foreign leader is willing to deal with a leader who claims "America first" as the terms of reference for any negotiation. Canada will build a wall and make America pay for it.

That's right. Seeing how Donald wants to kill NAFTA, that means no more oil from Canada. No grain, no softwood lumber either. Once ceased, all imports from the USA will cease immediately. America doesn't need trade partners, because they'll be great again.

I'm not from the USA. I voted don't know, don't care. The better liar wins, everyone else loses.

Therefore she must be guilty? The content of the emails is unknown. The only thing we know at this point, the FBI believes there are emails which may or may have not been reviewed in previous investigations. That's it.

G. W. Bush lost 22 million emails from his private servers. He was a Republican, so that doesn't count... apparently. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

Oh, I forgot to add demonizing yet another decent woman for the actions of her husband.