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This discussion has been archived.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.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.
-- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5
(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.