Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 skyth wrote:


As for the government drawing a line...technically they aren't allowed to in the US.

Just quoting here as while I agree principally that the US isn't allowed to draw a line, if still must.

since we've been discussing often "dead" or disused religions, should someone come under the legal system for their belief in say, Huitzilopochtli, then clearly some lines need to have been drawn.

Surely there would "need" to be a modernizing effort done by practitioners so that actual human/animal sacrifices are not needed to be performed (as these acts would undoubtedly fall afoul of certain laws)

The question is who gets to decide this?

Jeb and Jr. Bush both wanted Wicca to be considered a 'non-religion'.

And Wicca ain't exactly bloodthirsty. Kinda the opposite, ya know?

I do not want right wing religious yahoos deciding that my wife's religion isn't a religion.

Heck, I would have an easier time saying that my religion isn't a religion, and more a list of questions about religion. (With the one in big print being 'WHY?')

But then the likes of Rvd. Phelps say that Unitarians are going to Hell anyway. (And as a bonus - the Westboro yahoos don't pester Unitarian funerals! A win!)

The Auld Grump

A big part of it is the Graham family. No really. Billy Graham defined the modern Evangical image in America so completely that his image and style might as well be in the dictionary under the word. He spent most of his life as one of the most liked individuals in the country. Fast forward to today though and his image has become kind of double edged as it still dominates the cultural imagination and Graham was pretty progressive for his time but his views on women and certain ethnic groups (Jews) helps feed negative stereotypes about Christians in general and especially Evangelicals.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not politically. Atheist are the most discriminated group in politics. It is considered political suicide. Where is the outrage?

Right here, and I can point you at entire organizations dedicated to dealing with it. There's a reason your average atheist is assumed to be angry, it's the general outrage at how we're treated by religious and political groups in the US if we mention it. Eventually it peters out into a general dislike of people who don't understand how much work they're doing to screw us over for no good reason by trying to establish their religion as something official.

I like how the term "Evangelical" has taken on the meaning of "extremist white christian" - IMO it's current connotation is racist and should be condemned.
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/458058251/are-you-an-evangelical-are-you-sure

You can thank Bush and the general political movement of racist reactionary Christians that largely centers around evangelical and independent baptists churches for that image. Or the militia movements. Or the Alt-right and it's very much christian and largely evangelical base. It's funny watching the evangelicals call for action against the nazis, they don't seem to realize or maybe just admit how much of the ground work for that they laid.

Evangelicals as a group have been doing their level best to demolish any secular establishments in the US and replace them with religious establishments which favor themselves for easily the last two decades, probably longer but that's just how long I've been paying attention. Take that religious freedom task force they're running these days. Doubt that's going to be focusing on any of the laws that say atheists can't hold office in the US. Probably going to ensure that travesty of a Hobby Lobby verdict stays in place though.

Even in the most generous definition of evangelical I can give you they will do their level best to shape the government to their religion rather than keeping to themselves, it's part of the entire idea. That's not going to earn you love in a secular nation. Or at least not earn you any from secular communities.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not politically. Atheist are the most discriminated group in politics. It is considered political suicide. Where is the outrage?

Right here, and I can point you at entire organizations dedicated to dealing with it. There's a reason your average atheist is assumed to be angry, it's the general outrage at how we're treated by religious and political groups in the US if we mention it. Eventually it peters out into a general dislike of people who don't understand how much work they're doing to screw us over for no good reason by trying to establish their religion as something official.

I like how the term "Evangelical" has taken on the meaning of "extremist white christian" - IMO it's current connotation is racist and should be condemned.
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/458058251/are-you-an-evangelical-are-you-sure

You can thank Bush and the general political movement of racist reactionary Christians that largely centers around evangelical and independent baptists churches for that image. Or the militia movements. Or the Alt-right and it's very much christian and largely evangelical base. It's funny watching the evangelicals call for action against the nazis, they don't seem to realize or maybe just admit how much of the ground work for that they laid.

Evangelicals as a group have been doing their level best to demolish any secular establishments in the US and replace them with religious establishments which favor themselves for easily the last two decades, probably longer but that's just how long I've been paying attention. Take that religious freedom task force they're running these days. Doubt that's going to be focusing on any of the laws that say atheists can't hold office in the US. Probably going to ensure that travesty of a Hobby Lobby verdict stays in place though.

Even in the most generous definition of evangelical I can give you they will do their level best to shape the government to their religion rather than keeping to themselves, it's part of the entire idea. That's not going to earn you love in a secular nation. Or at least not earn you any from secular communities.

I'm just saying the word has been perverted to mean something else. I would prefer the term Christian extremists for the way it is being used - that is not what an Evangelical is. Like - the term Protestant and Evangelical seem pretty much synonymous to me.

But they aren't, there are far more protestants than evangelicals. Evangelicals are a more politically extreme subset of protestants.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But they aren't, there are far more protestants than evangelicals. Evangelicals are a more politically extreme subset of protestants.

I would actually say Evangelists ar no more extreme than any other Protestants. What they are however is much more politically active than most Protestants which might make them seem more extreme in the vacuum since most ministeries tend to shy away from overt political association in the US. Evangelicals on the other hand have built strong political associations which gives them a louder voice. Part of it is that Evangelism transcends traditional denominational divisions. Evangelicals have enjoyed support from Basically everyone who isn’t part of the Latter Day Saints movement (who have their own evangelical leanings) which is a big part of why they’ve been so successful politically. They’re a one stop gateway to a much broader audience which also means they can leverage more gain from political association.

And they’re not just on the right. One of the most important groups for the American left are Evangelical leaders who bridge the gap between the Democratic Party and minority communities especially among blacks. Catholic evangelists are very powerful among Hispanic communities and Catholic strongholds like New York. Evangelicals can be surprisingly environmentally conscious in my experience as well though they are rarely political on that front.

Graham style white Evangelicals, who are almost universally fundamentalist in their meanings, simply enjoy strong political associations and prolific media presence and end up obscuring everyone else.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm just saying the word has been perverted to mean something else. I would prefer the term Christian extremists for the way it is being used - that is not what an Evangelical is. Like - the term Protestant and Evangelical seem pretty much synonymous to me.

A number of pages back I posted an article written by a former professor of mine explaining all this in great detail. . . the 2018 version of evangelicalism is basically centered around whiteness, it IS an extreme viewpoint. It is less a perversion and more of an evolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The question is who gets to decide this?

Jeb and Jr. Bush both wanted Wicca to be considered a 'non-religion'.

And Wicca ain't exactly bloodthirsty. Kinda the opposite, ya know?

I do not want right wing religious yahoos deciding that my wife's religion isn't a religion.

Heck, I would have an easier time saying that my religion isn't a religion, and more a list of questions about religion. (With the one in big print being 'WHY?')

But then the likes of Rvd. Phelps say that Unitarians are going to Hell anyway. (And as a bonus - the Westboro yahoos don't pester Unitarian funerals! A win!)

The Auld Grump

I should think the solution would be "easy" . . . you take the time to craft laws such that say, live sacrifices are illegal no matter the situation. In many ways, the Satanic Temple's view on things seems quite apt: "your religious freedom is free until it infringes on mine"

But it has been regularly upheld in courts that a "public accommodation" must follow the law. Meaning that bakeries cannot discriminate its customer base based on their categories or the baker's beliefs.

https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

White House documents covering nearly all of Bill Clinton’s meetings and phone calls with Boris Yeltsin from 1993-1999 has been declassified and is now online.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilytamkin/13-revealing-moments-from-bill-clintons-declassified

picks out some moments.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But they aren't, there are far more protestants than evangelicals. Evangelicals are a more politically extreme subset of protestants.

I would actually say Evangelists ar no more extreme than any other Protestants. What they are however is much more politically active than most Protestants which might make them seem more extreme in the vacuum since most ministeries tend to shy away from overt political association in the US. Evangelicals on the other hand have built strong political associations which gives them a louder voice. Part of it is that Evangelism transcends traditional denominational divisions. Evangelicals have enjoyed support from Basically everyone who isn’t part of the Latter Day Saints movement (who have their own evangelical leanings) which is a big part of why they’ve been so successful politically. They’re a one stop gateway to a much broader audience which also means they can leverage more gain from political association.

And they’re not just on the right. One of the most important groups for the American left are Evangelical leaders who bridge the gap between the Democratic Party and minority communities especially among blacks. Catholic evangelists are very powerful among Hispanic communities and Catholic strongholds like New York. Evangelicals can be surprisingly environmentally conscious in my experience as well though they are rarely political on that front.

Graham style white Evangelicals, who are almost universally fundamentalist in their meanings, simply enjoy strong political associations and prolific media presence and end up obscuring everyone else.

Sorry, I was using evangelical as the political group it gets referred to, hence me using politically. Protestantism is a pretty broad church, you can find all kinds of people in there of course. Fundamentalist would be a better characterization. Its similar with Christian groups over here, its on a spectrum but the politically extreme part is has the term attached that is roughly the same as the US evangelical group on the right. Its on a spectrum, but if you use the term in a political context its different from the theological context of 'mainstream' protestantism.

 reds8n wrote:
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

White House documents covering nearly all of Bill Clinton’s meetings and phone calls with Boris Yeltsin from 1993-1999 has been declassified and is now online.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilytamkin/13-revealing-moments-from-bill-clintons-declassified

picks out some moments.

This is neat. I’m not sure what’s more striking. That they got along so well or that conversations between national leaders can seem so... mundane.

And B Clinton broached the IMF on Yeltsin’s behalf? Well. What fun. I can already see the Trump tweet forming. The last bit really helps show case the dramatic turn around in Putin’s reputation outside Russia though as well as the big change in how Yeltsin is seen in Russia today. Honestly Bills reputation I don’t think as faired greatly but he’s definitely not on the par of Yeltsin when it comes to falls from grace either.

"promised no Russian interference in the American election"

......

 reds8n wrote:
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

White House documents covering nearly all of Bill Clinton’s meetings and phone calls with Boris Yeltsin from 1993-1999 has been declassified and is now online.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilytamkin/13-revealing-moments-from-bill-clintons-declassified

picks out some moments.

Interesting read. The last bit is like watching the end of a prequel as it introduces the villain of the main plot.

 LordofHats wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

White House documents covering nearly all of Bill Clinton’s meetings and phone calls with Boris Yeltsin from 1993-1999 has been declassified and is now online.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilytamkin/13-revealing-moments-from-bill-clintons-declassified

picks out some moments.

This is neat. I’m not sure what’s more striking. That they got along so well or that conversations between national leaders can seem so... mundane.

And B Clinton broached the IMF on Yeltsin’s behalf? Well. What fun. I can already see the Trump tweet forming. The last bit really helps show case the dramatic turn around in Putin’s reputation outside Russia though as well as the big change in how Yeltsin is seen in Russia today. Honestly Bills reputation I don’t think as faired greatly but he’s definitely not on the par of Yeltsin when it comes to falls from grace either.

This is how I remember Yeltsin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9YnDirqwT4

https://theweek.com/speedreads/793513/trumps-approval-rating-among-black-voters-whopping-3-percent

President Trump's approval rating is pretty dismal overall, a poll by The Washington Post and ABC News found on Friday, but the numbers are worse in some demographic groups than others.

Just 3 percent of black Americans polled said they approved of Trump's performance, compared to the president's 36 percent approval overall. An overwhelming 93 percent of black Americans, meanwhile, said they disapprove. Those numbers have plummeted, data over time shows; just months ago his approval among black Americans was nearly 20 percent.

Non-white respondents overall largely disapprove of Trump, with 78 percent saying that he's handling the presidency poorly and 19 percent saying he's doing well. Those numbers were on the upswing, but sunk back down to the consistent low marks that Trump has received since entering office. Women also disapprove of Trump at higher rates: Sixty-six percent of women disapprove of his performance, and 54 percent of men agree.

Among white respondents, 45 percent approve of the president, while 51 percent disapprove. Trump's approval ratings are worse than ever among all demographic groups — 60 percent disapproval overall is the highest the Post has ever found.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted Aug. 26-29, reaching 1,003 adults by phone. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.

To the surprise of no one! Most people don't like trump.... Who knew...

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/793513/trumps-approval-rating-among-black-voters-whopping-3-percent

President Trump's approval rating is pretty dismal overall, a poll by The Washington Post and ABC News found on Friday, but the numbers are worse in some demographic groups than others.

Just 3 percent of black Americans polled said they approved of Trump's performance, compared to the president's 36 percent approval overall. An overwhelming 93 percent of black Americans, meanwhile, said they disapprove. Those numbers have plummeted, data over time shows; just months ago his approval among black Americans was nearly 20 percent.

Non-white respondents overall largely disapprove of Trump, with 78 percent saying that he's handling the presidency poorly and 19 percent saying he's doing well. Those numbers were on the upswing, but sunk back down to the consistent low marks that Trump has received since entering office. Women also disapprove of Trump at higher rates: Sixty-six percent of women disapprove of his performance, and 54 percent of men agree.

Among white respondents, 45 percent approve of the president, while 51 percent disapprove. Trump's approval ratings are worse than ever among all demographic groups — 60 percent disapproval overall is the highest the Post has ever found.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted Aug. 26-29, reaching 1,003 adults by phone. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.

To the surprise of no one! Most people don't like trump.... Who knew...

It really isn't a surprise. 90% of black people vote democrat. With 7% of democrats approving of trump. There is 0 surprise here. What is surprising that people keep doing these studies.

 reds8n wrote:
.. I guess his best tactic would be to throw yet another handful of gak into the air and yell loudly, causing something of a distraction.



...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45364150

President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw the US from the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming it treats the country unfairly.

"If they don't shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO," Mr Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg News.

The WTO was established to provide rules for global trade and resolve disputes between countries.

Mr Trump says the body too often rules against the US, although he concedes it has won some recent judgments.

He claimed on Fox News earlier this year that the WTO was set up "to benefit everybody but us", adding: "We lose the lawsuits, almost all of the lawsuits in the WTO."

However, some analysis shows the US wins about 90% when it is the complainant and loses about the same percentage when it is complained against.

Mr Trump's warning about a possible US pull-out from the organisation highlights the conflict between the president's protectionist trade policies and the open trade system that the WTO oversees

.. ohh.

Still keeps the white nationalists, the Q-anon believers and the other vocal idiots cheering eh ?

Trump does something stupid while saying its a great idea....

Yeah again I depise trump but man him threatening the us into becoming a Isolationist state will only hurt more americans in the end, showing he really doesn't know gak about trade, world commerce, or running a successful business without bankrupting it.

The fact he is running this country into the ground with such racist and stupid remarks is really testing many american's patience with him.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It really isn't a surprise. 90% of black people vote democrat. With 7% of democrats approving of trump. There is 0 surprise here. What is surprising that people keep doing these studies.

It's more like high 70's but that doesn't really change the point. Just as white supremacists/seperatists/inferiority complex-ists can hear the racist dogwhistles and flock to the 'Big Tent', so can the target of those same dogwhistles.

Edit: graphs! who doesn't love a good graph.

 feeder wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It really isn't a surprise. 90% of black people vote democrat. With 7% of democrats approving of trump. There is 0 surprise here. What is surprising that people keep doing these studies.

It's more like high 70's but that doesn't really change the point. Just as white supremacists/seperatists/inferiority complex-ists can hear the racist dogwhistles and flock to the 'Big Tent', so can the target of those same dogwhistles.

Edit: graphs! who doesn't love a good graph.

I did a few quick fact searches when I made that post.
90% seems like a fair number.
https://mic.com/articles/159402/here-s-a-break-down-of-how-african-americans-voted-in-the-2016-election#.SsI6LLiMh
If my memory serves me correctly - Obama got 92% of the black vote.

A silly idea...

If you remove any benefits that a "religion" gains from the government (ie: tax-free, breaks, etc) and instead have it be treated as any other normal business... do you think "religious identity" itself would work itself out?

The only reason for a "religious group" to gain official identity and be recognized by the government is because there are benefits that are gained from it, none of which is simple enlightenment but deal with business, property, taxes, etc. And none of that actually has anything to do with the basis and foundations of religion. There is no need then to draw a line, to define what is a religion and not a religion because at the end of the day it is up to personal freedom of choice of an individual, not something seeking acceptable by the government.

 Dark Severance wrote:
A silly idea...

If you remove any benefits that a "religion" gains from the government (ie: tax-free, breaks, etc) and instead have it be treated as any other normal business... do you think "religious identity" itself would work itself out?

The only reason for a "religious group" to gain official identity and be recognized by the government is because there are benefits that are gained from it, none of which is simple enlightenment but deal with business, property, taxes, etc. And none of that actually has anything to do with the basis and foundations of religion. There is no need then to draw a line, to define what is a religion and not a religion because at the end of the day it is up to personal freedom of choice of an individual, not something seeking acceptable by the government.

But that would remove the de facto privileged position that Christianity has held for decades in the US.

You don't really expect religious people that promoted humbleness and turning the other cheek, and how religious conviction is a sincere personal belief and how we should embrace other people, to actually act on those supposed convictions?

No, no. It is much easier to stick to talking and not acting.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It really isn't a surprise. 90% of black people vote democrat. With 7% of democrats approving of trump. There is 0 surprise here. What is surprising that people keep doing these studies.

It's more like high 70's but that doesn't really change the point. Just as white supremacists/seperatists/inferiority complex-ists can hear the racist dogwhistles and flock to the 'Big Tent', so can the target of those same dogwhistles.

Edit: graphs! who doesn't love a good graph.

I did a few quick fact searches when I made that post.
90% seems like a fair number.
https://mic.com/articles/159402/here-s-a-break-down-of-how-african-americans-voted-in-the-2016-election#.SsI6LLiMh
If my memory serves me correctly - Obama got 92% of the black vote.

Yeah, I guess that graph I found shows card-carrying party members? Obama got 93% and Hilary got 88% of the black vote. I guess black folks know a slick grifter when they see one

So....anyone following the Trade disasters of Donny Trumpo today?

Between derping on Canada and getting called out on it and whining about the WTO, I think my favorite was the EU offering to eliminate all auto tariffs if the US did the same, and Trump literally saying thats not good enough because...European consumers choose not to buy US cars in favor of European cars.

Trump wants the EU to force EU consumers to buy US cars...

 Vaktathi wrote:
So....anyone following the Trade disasters of Donny Trumpo today?

Between derping on Canada and getting called out on it and whining about the WTO, I think my favorite was the EU offering to eliminate all auto tariffs if the US did the same, and Trump literally saying thats not good enough because...European consumers choose not to buy US cars in favor of European cars.

Trump wants the EU to force EU consumers to buy US cars...

You missed him talking recently about car manufacturing coming back to Pennsylvania.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/404460-dem-warns-us-immigration-officials-who-are-just-following-orders
I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. I really don't think these people with "fake birth certificates" should be deported - esp the ones that are adults and have lived here their entire lives.

Calling for violence against your own people though...that is also going too far.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So....anyone following the Trade disasters of Donny Trumpo today?

Between derping on Canada and getting called out on it and whining about the WTO, I think my favorite was the EU offering to eliminate all auto tariffs if the US did the same, and Trump literally saying thats not good enough because...European consumers choose not to buy US cars in favor of European cars.

Trump wants the EU to force EU consumers to buy US cars...

It’s a good case of his short sighted stupidity. Getting a new NAFTA agreement, even the virtually identical with no meaningful change one it looked like he might get, would have been a big non for him. Something to point to and say he actually got a deal. Instead he’s got a huge list of utterly failed and botched negotiations mostly by his own obtuseness. It’s inmpossible to negotiate with a man who doesn’t awant to negotiate, and whose own success is measured by how much airtime he can get. The Grump paradigm is literally impossible to work with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So....anyone following the Trade disasters of Donny Trumpo today?

Between derping on Canada and getting called out on it and whining about the WTO, I think my favorite was the EU offering to eliminate all auto tariffs if the US did the same, and Trump literally saying thats not good enough because...European consumers choose not to buy US cars in favor of European cars.

Trump wants the EU to force EU consumers to buy US cars...

You missed him talking recently about car manufacturing coming back to Pennsylvania.

I didn’t. It was funny. Almost as funny as the stupid dream of restoring the US steel industry to its former glory.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm just saying the word has been perverted to mean something else. I would prefer the term Christian extremists for the way it is being used - that is not what an Evangelical is. Like - the term Protestant and Evangelical seem pretty much synonymous to me.

You come from a heavily evangelical area then I assume?

It's a relatively small and very much American offshoot of Christianity. The bible being inerrant, grace alone as salvation, there's quite a number of beliefs that are significantly divergent from other sects. Without going into the worse aspects that have cropped up in recent decades politically, it's not just being a protestant. Where I am the only evangelical churches in the area are relatively new, and I've got a pretty wide variety other sects that are significantly different doctrine wise. I've rarely come into conflict with them as religion is a very private thing up here. If they aren't family or don't go to the same church people probably don't know squat about your religious beliefs.

Then I started running into evangelicals. EVERYTHING was Jesus. Community? Jesus. Music? Jesus. Kids Shows? Jesus. Toast? Collectable Jesus. And everyone knows just how much everyone loves Jesus. They've got their own self contained eco system of evangelical culture that is often projected as an American mono culture, but it really isn't. Now, perhaps you're not the mega church goer with a library of christian music, there are ends of evangelicals who have some level of chill and the ability to consume popular culture without imploding, but when it comes to 'culture wars' types who start political battles, those folks have a way of life blatantly alien to me and most anyone outside of the evangelical bubble and apparently the need to inflict it on others.

 LordofHats wrote:


It’s a good case of his short sighted stupidity. Getting a new NAFTA agreement, even the virtually identical with no meaningful change one it looked like he might get, would have been a big non for him. Something to point to and say he actually got a deal. Instead he’s got a huge list of utterly failed and botched negotiations mostly by his own obtuseness. It’s inmpossible to negotiate with a man who doesn’t awant to negotiate, and whose own success is measured by how much airtime he can get. The Grump paradigm is literally impossible to work with.

.

Add to that not keeping up with his deals so even if he would promise all the good and nice things would he actually hold to them...

There is evangelical, which is an old religious label basically denoting a focus on a faith based salvation centered around the message of the Gospel and a calling to follow the Great Commission in order to open that message to all.

And there is Evangelical, which has become a religious political movement which has become more focused on outward religious identity and rules and pursuit of secular power in order to advance religious goals. That group has become almost like modern day Pharisees.

Some churches use the terms in different ways. I’m a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) congregation. We are evangelical but I wouldn’t call us Evangelical.

Looks like the domino got glued to the floor, NAFTA 2.0 fails, Canada doesn't bend the knee

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178

Talks between the US and Canada about amending the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) have ended for the week with no deal in sight.

US officials said they would meet their Canadian counterparts again next week in an effort to reach agreement.

For now, the US plans to move forward with a deal with Mexico on terms reached earlier in the week.

It's not clear what this means for the trilateral agreement, which governs more than $1tr (£770bn) in trade.

The White House had faced a Friday deadline to provide Congress with the necessary 90 days' notice that it intended to enter into a new trade agreement and still have the new Nafta deal to be signed by 1 December, the day Mexico's new left-wing president takes office.

"Today the president notified the Congress of his intent to sign a trade agreement with Mexico - and Canada, if it is willing - 90 days from now," US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement.

He said talks with Canada this week had been "constructive".

"Our officials are continuing to work toward agreement. The USTR team will meet with Minister Freeland and her colleagues Wednesday of next week."

Issues that have led to discord between the neighbouring countries include Canadian protection of its dairy farming industry, dispute-handling mechanisms and patent protections for medicines.

Dairy in particular appeared to be a stumbling block in the negotiations on Friday, with US officials saying Canada had made no concessions on agriculture and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying he was standing firm on the issue.

Lets watch the art of the deal on how to throw a hissy fit and try to destroy NAFTA 1.0 now.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/30/643341736/construction-worker-sues-company-says-he-was-fired-for-not-attending-bible-study

Evangelical vs evangelical.