Yesterday, 04:55 PM
See, this is exactly what I was talking about. Semantics. You need to think about what I'm actually saying here a little deeper.
Ask yourself: What is NAFTA? Is it any treaty, in the past, present or future between the US, Canada and Mexico that is called "NAFTA"? Or is NAFTA the CURRENT treaty between Mexico, the US and Canada?
The truth is, you can refer to EITHER of those as NAFTA, and so can anybody. That leads to a lot of confusion, but it is the nature of language. So if Trump wants to re-negotiate the treaty between Mexico, the US and Canada, and still call it NAFTA, then we would effectively withdraw from the current incarnation of NAFTA. So in some regards, the title of the infowars article is correct. But the title of the infowars article is NOT correct from the perspective that Trump has always, and will always intend to have some sort of trade agreement between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico in place, and it may very well end up being called "NAFTA". Again, it depends on the definition of "NAFTA" that is being used and both definitions are correct.
Now the other question is, if there is going to be a treaty between the US, Canada and Mexico, does it matter if the trade agreement is called NAFTA? Maybe to the mainstream media, but no, in reality it doesn't matter. What matters is the contents of the trade agreement, not what the name of the trade agreement is. Just like The Patriot Act was no more patriotic because of it's name, but it did change people's perception about what was in the bill.
So in the infowars report, when it says Trump wants to withdraw from NAFTA, they are saying that he wishes to withdraw from the current incarnation of NAFTA and re-negotiate a trade agreement. That was Trump's position 20 or 30 years ago, it was his position a year ago, it is still his position today. No amount of propaganda will change that - but you can change people's perception of things very easily, which is why it is important to be careful.