January 23, 2017

"President Donald Trump's first executive action on Monday will be to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal..."

"... two sources familiar with matter told CNN."
That withdrawal is consistent with campaign promises Trump made. The real estate mogul ran on a platform of anti-globalization policies and vowing to create fairer trade deals for American workers.
ADDED: What was Hillary Clinton's position on the TPP? Can you remember? When the question occurred to me, I knew I'd have to look it up, looking it up, I feel relief that I don't have to click through and try to absorb the complicated, changeable, unbelievable position/positions/whatever-it-was:

35 comments:

damikesc said...

The press headline?

"His inauguration was totes small, yo"

I'm glad he's pulling out of the deal. Looked like a terrible one. Next, I hope to see the FULL Iran deal released to the public. Every word of it.

rehajm said...

Number in attendance at Hillary's inauguration: 0.

damikesc said...

But, getting the media to obsess over pointless minutiae while he gets real work done might be one of the better ideas in a while. Helps him and further damages his foes. Fortunately, much of what Obama did can be undone without a huge amount of effort.

Freder Frederson said...

The TPP was doomed anyway. The tide had turned before Trump locked down the nomination. Although his consistent and vocal criticism of it probably helped him considerably.

Much more complicated and fraught is renegotiating standing agreements like NAFTA.

Sebastian said...

"try to absorb the complicated, changeable, unbelievable position/positions/whatever-it-was" As the email revelations showed, her own staff kept trying to figure out what the candidate's "position" was and what she was running on. Unsaid in the Russia-hackery fake-news deflection is that there was no there there. Enough voters sniffed it out.

AReasonableMan said...

So we are going to obsess over the irrelevancy of Hillary rather than deal with the implications of the TPP collapsing? Hmm.

Rusty said...

I can't help but think, ARM, that, since it was the child of liberalthink,the TPP was another pay to play for the democrat establishment in general and the Clintons in particular. The Iran deal being a precursor.

Mike said...

It doesn't matter what Hillary would have done. And how could you predict anyway, having heard her argue all sides of the issue during the primary and general. The Press will go to DefCon 10 and declare the apocalypse for every Trump action, TPP included. They have not yet learned to stop being Democrat shills and cannot yet begin to "report" anything faithfully. They will not remind readers that "deals" like the TPP and Iran fiasco were not ratified "treaties" but simply Barry agreeing on behalf of the government -- like a king -- to do things that he had no authority or intention of doing via normal political processes.

No, the Press will not faithfully report anything, it seems. After the dishonest way the first executive orders were reported, I don't see this one being any different. It will take the continued destruction of their business model -- based on trust the public used to have in their honesty -- for the Press to start maturing into a real, functioning institution that at least achieves the appearance of an attempt to be impartial.

Bob Boyd said...

rehajm said...
"Number in attendance at Hillary's inauguration: 0."

Heh.


Hillary: Not my President!

David said...

AReasonableMan said...
So we are going to obsess over the irrelevancy of Hillary rather than deal with the implications of the TPP collapsing? Hmm.


The implication is simple in a sense. It's going to be renegotiated, though perhaps in a different name and form. That process will start once the democrats get around to acting on the cabinet and other nominations.

You are such a conservative person, ARM. Change is hard for you.

Bob Boyd said...

@ ARM

Not obsessing, just indulging.

Quaestor said...

The C in HRC doesn't stand for coherence, does it?

I read today about Clinton's interest in a detailed analysis of her campaign, why it underperformed. I'm tempted to conclude that the fact that Miz Hillary is willing to spend millions more of her supporters' hard-won lucre to hire even more technocrats to tell her something that ought to be blindingly obvious to anyone with half the necessary political instincts is indicative of hopeless amateurism.

I have a long-time friend who used her Facebook account to pummel me with anti-Trump boilerplate for months leading up to the election, posts that I have studiously ignored given my propensity to answer random sniping with artillery barrages, as it were. As a last minute appeal, she importuned her friends with an admission of HRC's obvious weaknesses which though disappointing were less critical than Mr. Trump's shortcomings. She called Trump untested and incompetent. I was tempted to reply that political competence can only be gauged by results, that the only political test he had so far undergone Trump passed quite spectacularly. Since the election, her argument has devolved into a quite shopworn would you trust an untested pilot with your life? buttonholing, which he now prefaces with an expression of a "sincere desire to engage in good-spirited political debate" with those who voted for Trump yet remain her friends, none the less. I'm tempted to send her a link to this Althouse posting wit the comment that I for one would prefer an untested pilot to one with such a long history of crashes.

Freder Frederson said...

I can't help but think, ARM, that, since it was the child of liberalthink,the TPP was another pay to play for the democrat establishment in general and the Clintons in particular.

Sheesh, the Republican establishment is traditionally the ones who push big trade deals like this, and they were all behind this one. Obama was looking at a situation where the TPP would have passed with very few Democratic votes, which is probably why he didn't push it. The beneficiaries of these deals are traditional Republican constituents (e.g., big agriculture, pharmaceutical companies, heavy equipment and aerospace).

And remember, NAFTA, although signed by Clinton, was negotiated by the HW Bush administration.

Quaestor said...

Next, I hope to see the FULL Iran deal released to the public. Every word of it.

That should be easy; completely monosyllabic I wager.

gadfly said...

TPP got TP'ed. Next will be NAFTA and then the American consumer will be heard from when Walmart prices go up and up. On the other hand, American jobs will decrease because Mexico didn't take our manufacturing jobs, robots did.

It is 1930 all over again.

Freder Frederson said...

They will not remind readers that "deals" like the TPP and Iran fiasco were not ratified "treaties" but simply Barry agreeing on behalf of the government -- like a king -- to do things that he had no authority or intention of doing via normal political processes.

Why would they lie? TPP had to be ratified by the Congress.

Freder Frederson said...

The Iran deal being a precursor.

TPP negotiations started in February 2008. It sure was an evil plot cooked up by Obama.

Quaestor said...

The beneficiaries of these deals are traditional Republican constituents (e.g., big agriculture, pharmaceutical companies, heavy equipment and aerospace).

You left off the rimshot. A fortunate awaits you in the field of stand-up comedy, Freder.

Quaestor said...

TPP had to be ratified by the Congress.

Just like that ground-breaking Iran nuclear deal, right?

Freder Frederson said...

You left off the rimshot. A fortunate awaits you in the field of stand-up comedy, Freder.

I was not attempting to be funny. Who do you think the beneficiaries of TPP would have been?

cubanbob said...

Freder Frederson said...
The TPP was doomed anyway. The tide had turned before Trump locked down the nomination. Although his consistent and vocal criticism of it probably helped him considerably.

Much more complicated and fraught is renegotiating standing agreements like NAFTA."

I'm happy to see you woke up this morning in a sensible mood. You're correct. Trump's style is the deal isn't done until I say its done. That has been his MO for decades. It usually works for him. Having relatives in the construction trades who have worked on his projects that is SOP until he pushes a bit too far and the contractor walks and then amends are made but still Trump does get an advancement in his position. NAFTA will get some tweaking and the TPP will be renegotiated and eventually when the economy really starts recovering it will get passed. If I had to guess it would be during Trumps second term.

Freder Frederson said...

Just like that ground-breaking Iran nuclear deal, right?

Sorry, I missed where I said that. What does one have to do with the other anyway?

rcocean said...

She was always for TPP. Her difficulty was how to lie about that while keeping her Donors happy and avoiding the issue as much as possible.

The idea that the average american is getting rock bottom prices at Walmart because of China is a myth that too many buy into.


Quaestor said...

It is 1930 all over again.

That's encouraging. Three days ago it was 1933 all over again. It the current rate it will soon be 1642 all over again. My ancestors knew what they were doing when they bequeathed me that lobster-tail pot and buffcoat.

rcocean said...

TPP was never doomed. It would be passing right now if Hillary had been elected.

Quaestor said...

Who do you think the beneficiaries of TPP would have been?

Not the USA is my surmise.

Mike said...

Freder Frederson said: Why would they lie?

That's what they do! And when they aren't shading the truth they are obscuring facts. The gatekeeping behavior of the press is just as odious as its partisanship, and was integral to its former formidable power in shaping the narrative.

- No respected media outlet ever interviewed security experts and asked on-air about the server set up Hillary used. There was absolutely no curiosity about the implications of her homebrew server. All articles were served up as "Republicans say this" and "Hillary says this" instead of, you know, facts about the issue.

- No traveling reporter ever asked Hillary why she did not take the training in email security or why her aids all took the fifth in testimony or if any of the lying aids who took the fifth would continue to be employed in her admin.

- No reporter ever thought Huma and her shady background and Cheryl Mills and her shady arrangements were as interesting to write about as Bannon and Breitbart and Manafort.

- No reporter ever offered the "context" to the election that for the first time a national candidate was under FBI investigation and explored whether this was an issue to be concerned with.

- No reporter ever asked Hillary why she accepted the illegal cheating help she got from CNN and other news organizations during the primary and general. No one asked her why Donna Brazile should be allowed to run the DNC after admitting she cheated -- helped Hillary cheat! -- or even wondered why NO ONE was ever fired by Hillary for unethical behavior.

There are an endless number of issues like the above which, if exposed by the Press, would have shown an unfavorable light on Hillary or Obama and so were studiously ignored by the Press. You can play the "if he was a Republican" game all day long and not run out of material. Which is also why now, as the Democrats and Press appear interested in vetting Trump's cabinet, the public has no interest in hearing their bullshit.

Freder Frederson said...


That's what they do!

I was being facetious. You were the one lying by implying that TPP would be passed without approval of the Congress.

And by the way, all the examples you gave are examples of not asking questions you consider pertinent, not lies the press told.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

Hillary was for TPP; then Bernie gained traction in the Dem primaries, so she started opposing it.

Another reason why she lost -- conspicuous political expediency.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"My ancestors knew what they were doing when they bequeathed me that lobster-tail pot and buffcoat."

Freakin' Roundhead.

Rusty said...

Freder Frederson said...
I can't help but think, ARM, that, since it was the child of liberalthink,the TPP was another pay to play for the democrat establishment in general and the Clintons in particular.

"Sheesh, the Republican establishment is traditionally the ones who push big trade deals like this, and they were all behind this one. Obama was looking at a situation where the TPP would have passed with very few Democratic votes, which is probably why he didn't push it. The beneficiaries of these deals are traditional Republican constituents (e.g., big agriculture, pharmaceutical companies, heavy equipment and aerospace)."

Well, Freder. I'm from Chicago and I know how these democrat things work.

HT said...

32 comments? This was one of the real pieces of news today, and 32 comments?

You had to look up Hillary's record? Really? Does it mean that little to you?

She was "against" it, in quotation marks. She was uncomfortably against it, and it was obvious to anyone.

HT said...

"NAFTA will get some tweaking and the TPP will be renegotiated and eventually when the economy really starts recovering it will get passed. If I had to guess it would be during Trumps second term. "

You mean he's holding a basically phony position on trade?

cathy said...

Here in NZ, a trade negotiator said that if the admin called for bi-lateral talks the NZ representatives would be on the plane right away. The deal would have changed dairy farming, which is what they do here, and brought in corporate farming. Legal stuff would go to a whole different level. It would really have undermined the Maori land negotiations, so the Maori involved in that are super against TPP.

Cathy