SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump says he will issue an executive action on his first day in office to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In a video updating Americans on the White House transition, the President-elect described TPP as a "potential disaster for our country".
[...] Mr Trump said his administration instead intends to generate "fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores".
Sky Correspondent Greg Milam said: "Donald Trump has been very critical of what trade deals have done for American workers and the damage that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) did in the 1990s - particularly to low-income workers in the Midwest, who it turns out voted for Mr Trump in huge numbers."
Source: Sky News
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump to Withdraw US from Trans-Pacific Partnership
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 81 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Everything you know is wrong!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday November 22 2016, @10:19PM
If anyone needed any reason to wonder why so many people voted for Trump, they could probably just start and finish at things like the TPP. A multinational trade deal, cooked up and pushed by special interest groups, negotiated in secret (because they KNEW that the content would be unpopular with 99% of the population) and almost snuck in under the cover of darkness. What was that part about "of the people, by the people, for the people" again?
I'm personally glad for this too, as the TPP was going to be very bad for Australians. With the US out, it's very likely to die off entirely. Our Government has been toeing the establishment line and supporting it, so there was little chance of us escaping its clutches any other way.
Don't chalk me up as a Trump fan just yet, but like OP, I'll take my wins when I can.
(Now hoping he doesn't get too many people in his ear between now and January. Do you remember how Obama was definitely going to close Gitmo?)
(Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 22 2016, @11:26PM
Go do a little search on why Obama hasn't closed gitmo yet. It's not for lack of trying. There are plenty of people in the pentagon and congress who didn't like the idea and sandbagged where ever possible.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Wednesday November 23 2016, @12:26AM
Thank goodness Trump was elected -- he'll just get things done. He'll ignore everyone's input, then sign an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention site, and order the prisoners returned to their respective countries of origin. As a result, he'll win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Why, yes I would like another glass of wine, thank you. Best Thanksgiving ever!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:54PM
Yeah, Obama wins the peace prize just by showing up a different color than the rugs: Trump should win just because... his HAIR! I mean..... his HAIR!!! IT IS NICER THAN HILLARY'S! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:10AM
LOL XD
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 23 2016, @03:03AM
It depends on what you mean by "close". Politicians have this knack of using words that imply something, like "ending the practice of due process free detention" to make people feel warm and fuzzy, while meaning something totally different, like "closing down Gitmo and moving the PRACTICE of due process free detention to Illinois." The latter is what Obama wanted to do. Slimy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:56PM
It depends on what you mean by "close". Politicians have this knack of using words that imply something, like "ending the practice of due process free detention" to make people feel warm and fuzzy, while meaning something totally different, like "closing down Gitmo and moving the PRACTICE of due process free detention to Illinois." The latter is what Obama wanted to do. Slimy.
In other words, "close Gitmo" meant... closing Gitmo? Color me shocked.
He didn't say he wanted to end the practice, just close the practice of using Guantanamo Bay that way.
I'd also argue that if it were to move to the continental US, that would be a substantial step in the right direction. One of the arguments the Bush administration used frequently was that Gitmo was not subject to constitutional provisions due to it not being on US territory (or something like that... it was weird double-talk). If it were on 100% uncontested US soil, that argument would not longer apply.
Also, in terms of soft-power, it would be a major step forward. There would be much more visibility in the practices going on there (even if it were done illegally by news organizations and vigilantes), and there would also much more attention (as the local neighbors would have opinions and potentially raise a ruckus with news and politicians, if nothing else).
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday November 23 2016, @03:06AM
My concern exactly. How many people will slither out in the next 2 months and tell Trump that it's just too hard to pull out of the TPP because reasons? Fortunately, it will be hard for the special interest groups to get their way by sandbagging, as it's them that need things to keep moving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:52AM
Pentagon? He should have had a stern talk with the Commander in Chief about that problem.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 28 2016, @11:16PM
They may not *like* the idea, but he doesn't actually need their approval:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-doesnt-need-congresss-permission-to-close-guantanamo/2015/11/06/4cc9d2ac-83f5-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Of course, it's possible if he tried he'd end up in court. So did the ACA, but that didn't stop him there. When the White House counsel (the author of the above article) is saying he's fully authorized to do it alone, and he chooses not to, it's hard to say he had any real determination to the idea. At best you could say he was considering shutting it down but only if nobody raised any objections. And as soon as they did, he backed off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @12:53AM
> If anyone needed any reason to wonder why so many people voted for Trump, they could probably just start and finish at things like the TPP.
Economic anxiety is a popular narrative for explaining Trump. But the single greatest predictor of support for Trump in both the primaries and pre-election polling was cultural anxiety [washingtonpost.com] that Trump brought out among constituents.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:24AM
Wait one. Trump didn't bring out any cultural anxiety. The alt-left in this country has been bringing that out for the past few years. BLM, for instance. They have made it quite clear that ONLY black lives matter. To say that "all lives matter" is considered a challenge by BLM, and repeatedly, we are told that white lives, blue lives, brown lives are all secondary to black lives.
With the alt-left SJW's backing this kind of crap, they can claim credit for bringing out any cultural anxiety.
If Trump capitalized on that anxiety, well, that's what politicians do, right?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:20AM
That's because the All Lives Matter thing was started specifically as a challenge of BLM. BLM has some major problems in terms of PR, strategy and aim, but you're grossly mischaracterizing it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:34AM
No, I'm not mischaracterizing. With BLM, they aren't rioting over the obviously innocent. There are a number of young black males who were very obviously MURDERED, on camera. BLM has little if anything to say about those. BLM instead protests the deaths of those who are less obviously innocent, as well as those who are obviously GUILTY. Furgeson? Come on, WTF?
BLM is a racist movement, with few if any redeeming qualities. You can use several adjectives to describe them, including unruly, lawless, violent, racist, and combative. If none of that were true, they would have latched onto that "all lives matter" thing, and made it their own.
Are white europeans the only people who can take demeaning insults like "yankee doodle", and make those insults something to be proud of? Obviously, BLM is incapable of doing so.
But, that's because BLM doesn't really want to find a solution. When George Soros funds anything, he intends to be more disruptive, than anything.
https://www.google.com/search?q=who+funds+BLM&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com]
That's the face I'd love to see stuck to a 24" truck tire . . . .
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:40AM
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 23 2016, @03:06AM
Sorry, but I have the WAPO blocked in my /etc/hosts.
Remember the Maine! https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F11%2Frememberthemaine.jpg&f=1 [duckduckgo.com]
You want to talk fake news? The WAPO is the place to start.