Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the we're-going-back-to-bartering dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:56PM (#431914)

    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).