Trump Changes Mind On NAFTA, Decides Not To Terminate Treaty; Loonie, Peso Soar

[nikcers]

Perhaps you forgot it also was the same media that handed Donald the nomination.

I'm not saying is a conspiracy..https://youtu.be/KjO-_t6KtsY?t=171

[Superfluous Man]

This is all fake news, he hasn't changed anything.

Trump has always said he will re-negotiate trade deals like NAFTA. That is and always has been his position. It's in his speeches as a candidate, and it is contained in the article above.

The media likes to play games with semantics... when Trump the candidate says he doesn't like NAFTA and wants to re-negotiate, the media would say he wants to abolish NAFTA, and not bring up anything about the re-negotiation. When Trump the President says he doesn't like NAFTA and wants to re-negotiate, the media says he flip flopped.. It's $#@!ing retarded, I recommend not listening to a single word from the mainstream media.

So the reports that Trump was considering an executive order to exit NAFTA a few days ago were false, even though Trump himself not only admitted that they were true, but that for awhile he was "psyched to terminate NAFTA," up until he changed his mind, which you say he didn't do?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN17S2DG

[dannno]

Perhaps you forgot it also was the same media that handed Donald the nomination.

LOL.. ya.. the media that said every single day for 2 years that Trump is "literally Hitler" and lied about everything he said and twisted it into something he didn't mean every single day in order to make him look bad, handed him the election..

I hate to break it to you, but they were attempting to hand the election to Hillary.. One would think that was glaringly obvious. If you think they were trying to give Trump the Presidency, by attacking him every day, do you have any idea what kind of conspiracy that would entail? Do you have ANY evidence? I think almost everything is a conspiracy, yet this one is literally out of the park, I just can't see how that could be organized an executed like that for the purpose of getting him elected.. and the other big question, why?? Who cares? Why not just let them battle and let Hillary or Trump win? Why did Trump have to win? What advantage does that give them over Hillary? They would be able to get way more globalist $#@! done with Hillary.

[dannno]

So the reports that Trump was considering an executive order to exit NAFTA a few days ago were false, even though Trump himself not only admitted that they were true, but that for awhile he was "psyched to terminate NAFTA," up until he changed his mind, which you say he didn't do?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN17S2DG

What the $#@! are you talking about?

The whole point of this thread is that Trump changed his position, which is incorrect, Trump has never changed his position.

Trump has always said that we would re-negotiate a trade deal with Mexico, and with Canada. That is still his position. Whether he re-negotiates NAFTA and calls it NAFTA or whether he abolished NAFTA and re-negotiates a new trade deal with a different name or the same name is totally immaterial, he has always been open to taking WHATEVER route was necessary in order to re-negotiate the trade deal.

Until you can show me where Trump has changed his mind regarding re-negotiating the trade deal with Mexico and Canada, which you can't, his position has not changed. His tactics have changed, but his goals and his position on the issue has stayed the same.

[Superfluous Man]

The whole point of this thread is that Trump changed his position, which is incorrect, Trump has never changed his position.

So, when his position was that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, and then his position was that he wanted to sign an executive order to exit NAFTA, and then his position went back to being that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, that all happened without him changing his position?

I have never, ever, encountered as much of a blatant, mindlessly devoted shill as you.

[Ender]

LOL.. ya.. the media that said every single day for 2 years that Trump is "literally Hitler" and lied about everything he said and twisted it into something he didn't mean every single day in order to make him look bad, handed him the election..

I hate to break it to you, but they were attempting to hand the election to Hillary.. One would think that was glaringly obvious. If you think they were trying to give Trump the Presidency, by attacking him every day, do you have any idea what kind of conspiracy that would entail? Do you have ANY evidence? I think almost everything is a conspiracy, yet this one is literally out of the park, I just can't see how that could be organized an executed like that for the purpose of getting him elected.. and the other big question, why?? Who cares? Why not just let them battle and let Hillary or Trump win? Why did Trump have to win? What advantage does that give them over Hillary? They would be able to get way more globalist $#@! done with Hillary.

Obviously, you haven't read The Art of the Deal.

From the book:

On the press: "One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.

On bad press: From a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks. It's really quite simple ... The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business."

I was the one saying that the "bad press" was NOT hurting Trump. Apparently he agrees.

[dannno]

So, when his position was that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, and then his position was that he wanted to sign an executive order to exit NAFTA, and then his position went back to being that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, that all happened without him changing his position?

I have never, ever, encountered as much of a blatant, mindlessly devoted shill as you.

What is the point of debating if you won't read my posts?

The next line I wrote was:

Trump has always said that we would re-negotiate a trade deal with Mexico, and with Canada. That is still his position.

I didn't say anything about Trump's position being to re-negotiate NAFTA, that is just ONE OPTION he had on the table. His position is to re-negotiate the trade deals. You are the one getting wrapped up in bull$#@! semantics.

His position is to re-negotiate the trade deal between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico.

Now let me copy and paste the rest of my last post because your shill $#@!ing ass apparently can't read.

Whether he re-negotiates NAFTA and calls it NAFTA or whether he abolished NAFTA and re-negotiates a new trade deal with a different name or the same name is totally immaterial, he has always been open to taking WHATEVER route was necessary in order to re-negotiate the trade deal.

Until you can show me where Trump has changed his mind regarding re-negotiating the trade deal with Mexico and Canada, which you can't, his position has not changed. His tactics have changed, but his goals and his position on the issue has stayed the same.

[dannno]

Obviously, you haven't read The Art of the Deal.

From the book:

On the press: "One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.

On bad press: From a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks. It's really quite simple ... The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business."

I was the one saying that the "bad press" was NOT hurting Trump. Apparently he agrees.

Of course the bad press helped Trump, if you recall, I kept telling CPUd during the election that she was helping Trump get elected by posting all that bull$#@!.

But my question remains: Why destroy the credibility of the mainstream media just to get Trump elected when they had a toolbag puppet running against him? Obviously they were ok with Hillary winning, so why put in all the effort, which destroyed their credibility and just let them run a more normal election and let the two puppets battle it out? They already had two puppets in place ready to go.

[Superfluous Man]

What is the point of debating if you won't read my posts?

The next line I wrote was:



I didn't say anything about Trump's position being to re-negotiate NAFTA, that is just ONE OPTION he had on the table. His position is to re-negotiate the trade deals. You are the one getting wrapped up in bull$#@! semantics.

His position is to re-negotiate the trade deal between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico.

Now let me copy and paste the rest of my last post because your shill $#@!ing ass apparently can't read.

Yeah. I really am lost.

Show me the part about how one day his position is to end NAFTA, and the next day his position is to keep NAFTA, and that's not a change of his position.

Because that is exactly what just happened.

[Ender]

Of course the bad press helped Trump, if you recall, I kept telling CPUd during the election that she was helping Trump get elected by posting all that bull$#@!.

But my question remains: Why destroy the credibility of the mainstream media just to get Trump elected when they had a toolbag puppet running against him? Obviously they were ok with Hillary winning, so why put in all the effort, which destroyed their credibility and just let them run a more normal election and let the two puppets battle it out? They already had two puppets in place ready to go.

Uh....maybe so people here would feel good about voting for him? After all, if Fake News hated him, then his trustworthiness must be YUUUUUUGE!

[dannno]

Yeah. I really am lost.

Show me the part about how one day his position is to end NAFTA, and the next day his position is not to keep NAFTA, and that's not a change of his position.

Because that is exactly what just happened.

You keep specifying NAFTA.. NAFTA is a trade deal.

Trump's position is to re-negotiate the trade deals between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico. One way to do that would be to abolish NAFTA and come up with new trade deals. Another way to do that would be to re-negotiate NAFTA. Either of those options fall within Trump's goal of re-negotiating the trade deals with the US and Mexico and the US and Canada.

So when Trump decides one day he is going to re-negotiate the trade deals by abolishing NAFTA via executive order, and the next day he decides he is going to take an alternate route in order to re-negotiate the trade deals between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada, that doesn't mean he changed his position. He just changed his tactic..

How many more times do I need to explain this for you to understand? Or are you just pretending not to understand? Are you trying to make your side look bad?

[dannno]

Uh....maybe so people here would feel good about voting for him? After all, if Fake News hated him, then his trustworthiness must be YUUUUUUGE!

Why did they need ANYBODY to vote for either of them if they were the only ones running? Do you think they were scared of Gary Johnson??

[nikcers]

Why did they need ANYBODY to vote for either of them if they were the only ones running? Do you think they were scared of Gary Johnson??

Remember when the neocons ran million dollar attack ads against Trump the day he announced he was running for president?

[devil21]

LOL.. ya.. the media that said every single day for 2 years that Trump is "literally Hitler" and lied about everything he said and twisted it into something he didn't mean every single day in order to make him look bad, handed him the election..

I hate to break it to you, but they were attempting to hand the election to Hillary.. One would think that was glaringly obvious. If you think they were trying to give Trump the Presidency, by attacking him every day, do you have any idea what kind of conspiracy that would entail? Do you have ANY evidence? I think almost everything is a conspiracy, yet this one is literally out of the park, I just can't see how that could be organized an executed like that for the purpose of getting him elected.. and the other big question, why?? Who cares? Why not just let them battle and let Hillary or Trump win? Why did Trump have to win? What advantage does that give them over Hillary? They would be able to get way more globalist $#@! done with Hillary.

It doesn't matter which one "wins". Both are owned and hand-selected. Get it? Trump was elevated by the media (owned by the bankers and their buddies and owners) to be the alternative to Clinton. Just like Romney/Obama, Bush/Kerry, etc. The bankers own both sides...and that's assuming you believe the vote actually matters and the winner isn't already decided before Tuesday voting occurs.

And yesterday Donald admitted to being a globalist. How will you spin that one? It's funny at this point.

[dannno]

Remember when the neocons ran million dollar attack ads against Trump the day he announced he was running for president?

Well they don't need to pay for attack "ads" all they have to do is sick the media they own on him. And yes, I recall it quite vividly.

[dannno]

And yesterday Donald admitted to being a globalist. How will you spin that one? It's funny at this point.

He is a globalist and a nationalist. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a potentially pretty good combination to me.

[jllundqu]

Let's just save all the typing and just post this:

"Anything Trump does is good and you're too stupid to get it." - Dannno

[devil21]

He is a globalist and a nationalist. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a potentially pretty good combination to me.

Don't make me post the scads of videos of candidate Trump decrying globalism.

[dannno]

Let's just save all the typing and just post this:

"Anything Trump does is good and you're too stupid to get it." - Dannno

Huh? That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The media is trying to say that Trump is flip flopping on his position, but they are making up what his position is. His actual position is regarding the re-negotiation of trade deals between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada, but the media is portraying his tactics as his position, when the tactics are a means to his goals and there is more to one tactic at his disposal. So the media is trying to pretend that when he switches tactics, he is flip flopping, when he is actually using the different tactics to get to the same goal.

This has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea or bad idea, it just has to do with whether Trump is being consistent on his position, which he is in this case.

[dannno]

Don't make me post the scads of videos of candidate Trump decrying globalism.

You mean the one where he professes his love of vaChina?

[acptulsa]

Of course the bad press helped Trump, if you recall, I kept telling CPUd during the election that she was helping Trump get elected by posting all that bull$#@!.

But my question remains: Why destroy the credibility of the mainstream media just to get Trump elected when they had a toolbag puppet running against him? Obviously they were ok with Hillary winning, so why put in all the effort, which destroyed their credibility and just let them run a more normal election and let the two puppets battle it out? They already had two puppets in place ready to go.

I already rubbed your nose in that. Nobody was going to stand for Bush v. Clinton 2.0, so they brought in your controlled opposition lest people vote for real opposition, like Rand Paul.

If the voters want opposition, the voters get opposition. We just get controlled opposition, so we don't vote for real opposition. How did I not make this obvious enough the first time? I used all the best third-grade words. Do people really have to put this stuff in their sigs to keep you from reasserting your debunked blather in different threads every single day?

Do you really wake up in a new world every day, or do you just pretend to for money? Do you think nobody notices when Trump shills get owned in one thread, then run to another to say the same damned thing that was just disproven in the other thread?

Or to put it another way, someone (who is also throwing stones) appears to be a...

...shill $#@!ing ass [who] apparently can't read.

[dannno]

I already rubbed your nose in that. Nobody was going to stand for Bush v. Clinton 2.0, so they brought in your controlled opposition lest people vote for real opposition, like Rand Paul.

If the voters want opposition, the voters get opposition. We just get controlled opposition, so we don't vote for real opposition. How did I not make this obvious enough the first time? I used all the best third-grade words.

Do you really wake up in a new world every day, or do you just pretend to for money? Do you think nobody notices when Trump shills get owned in one thread, then run to another to say the same damned thing that was just disproven in the other thread?

Or to put it another way, someone (who is also throwing stones) appears to be a...

I read your post, I don't think it's impossible it just still seems really unlikely and I haven't seen enough good evidence for it.

If Trump's sole purpose was to keep Rand out, which was my original theory long, long ago, well I didn't even support Trump until well after Rand was out. The mainstream media continued to commit suicide, and still continues to do so, in order to try to get Trump out of power.

Once Trump won the GOP nomination, why not loosely get behind him? Whey keep up the charade at 100% intensity? Do you think they feared Gary Johnson? If so, at some point Gary Johnson was completely a no-go, it was shortly after the Allepo incident I believe. Why keep going? Why the Russia bull$#@! after the election?

[acptulsa]

1. It should be obvious to even the dimmest bulb that 'we elected a good one but the pressure got to him' leaves open the possibility of pushing through more controlled opposition, while 'we put it over on you dumbasses' does not.

2. You seem to think playing silly conservatives is all that concerns them, but the Russian garbage is obviously much more geared toward keeping silly progressives in the herd.

3. I'm getting blue in the face repeating to you, the media had already lost credibility with conservatives before the election. They had already destroyed that; the tool was broken when they decided to use it as a hammer.

Except for certain controlled oppo sites like Alex Jones and Molyneux. They're still getting mileage out of those clowns, thanks to certain stubbornly foolish individuals.

I fully understand that all this is too adult a puzzle for some people. I just don't understand why they insist on being so arrogant as to brag about that, and curse others for actually understanding what's really going on. Or, at least, I don't understand why a useful idiot would feel the need to go arrogant. I can certainly understand how a paid shill would think it advantageous to cast aspersions in every direction possible.

That said, it has been three months since inauguration, and the press attacks are already over. Apparently that's all it takes to convince some people that the person in question will be despised by the media until the end of time...

[Ender]

Of course the bad press helped Trump, if you recall, I kept telling CPUd during the election that she was helping Trump get elected by posting all that bull$#@!.

But my question remains: Why destroy the credibility of the mainstream media just to get Trump elected when they had a toolbag puppet running against him? Obviously they were ok with Hillary winning, so why put in all the effort, which destroyed their credibility and just let them run a more normal election and let the two puppets battle it out? They already had two puppets in place ready to go.

Be...cause...Hillary.....would have won?

[wizardwatson]

More anti-Trump MSM propaganda from the deep state.

NAFTA STAYS AND GLOBALISTS STAY IN CONTROL

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...tay-in-control

By Liberty Report Staff

Real free trade (and NAFTA is not free trade) produces a win-win for both parties to a transaction. After all, both parties are free to exchange, and free to reject the exchange. If exchange is chosen, it necessarily means that both parties are better off trading than not.

When government gets involved with trade, by wielding force, the transaction becomes win-lose instead of win-win. Someone is being forced against his or her will somewhere. Someone benefits from the use of force, and someone else suffers.

The loser may be one of the parties to the transaction (think Obamacare), or the losers may be hapless taxpayers, who have nothing to do with the transaction, but end up footing the bill for something.

​Whoever the loser happens to be, the key takeaway is that government force is always a bad thing.

Donald Trump called NAFTA "the worst trade deal in history." It's definitely up there, and many of his voters were hoping that the "anti-establishment" Trump would take this New World Order trade deal (that has zero to do with actual free trade) off our backs.

In 1993, Henry Kissinger wrote in the L.A. Times concerning NAFTA: “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order.”

NAFTA surrenders America's national sovereignty to faceless and unelected international bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, as with Obamacare, Trump has let Americans down by by refusing to rid us of "the worst trade deal in history." To say that Trump will "re-negotiate" the trade deal means almost nothing.

The New World Order structure stays in place, American sovereignty will still be given away, and a future U.S. President can just "re-negotiate" things right back to the way that globalists want it.

"Re-negotiation" means that faceless international bureaucrats continue to run the show.

As Gary North points out:
As long as the bureaucrats remain in control of policy, which is forever unless NAFTA is abandoned by the US government, they don't care if Trump gets this or that point renegotiated. Enforcement will always be in the hands of the bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats ignore the politicians except on rare occasions. The politicians are not in charge. The bureaucrats are in charge. That's why NAFTA is a disaster. It is going to remain a disaster.
President Trump .... America needs free trade.

We don't need re-negotiated government force. We don't need any force at all!

​We need freedom.

Get out of NAFTA.

The only thing liar Trump is ever "re-negoatiating" is his supporters' honest assessment of him.

[Lamp]

nice name @natsuxdragoneel

[Lamp]

So I assume Trump isn't going to "negotiate for a better deal" which was kind of his whole reason for becoming President and taking the Reform Party ticket in 2000.

[Danke]

So I assume Trump isn't going to "negotiate for a better deal" which was kind of his whole reason for becoming President and taking the Reform Party ticket in 2000.

Wat?

[rpfocus]

The only thing liar Trump is ever "re-negoatiating" is his supporters' honest assessment of him.

There's no helping them. Everything he does is a brilliant chess move.

[CPUd]

White House advisors called Ottawa to urge Trudeau to help talk Trump down from scrapping NAFTA

John Ivison | May 8, 2017 5:26 PM ET


White House staff called the Prime Minister’s Office last month to urge Justin Trudeau to persuade President Donald Trump not to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement, according to multiple Canadian government sources.

The unconventional diplomatic manoeuvre — approaching the head of a foreign government to influence your own boss — proved decisive, as Trump thereafter abandoned his threat to pull out of NAFTA unilaterally, citing the arguments made by Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto as pivotal.

But the incident highlights the difficulties faced by governments all over the world when it comes to dealing with a president as volatile as Trump.

On Wednesday, April 26, the Washington Post, Politico, CNN and the New York Times published stories saying that sources within the White House were considering a draft executive order to cancel NAFTA. The rumour knocked almost two per cent off the Mexican peso and a third of a cent off the loonie.

Media reports in Washington suggested a debate was underway within the White House about how aggressively to move on the reshaping of NAFTA, with hardliners pushing Trump to withdraw unilaterally before his 100th day in office. According to Politico, Peter Navarro, the head of Trump’s National Trade Council, and White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon drafted an executive order that, if signed, would have triggered the withdrawal process. It was unclear according to those reports whether the draft order was prepared as a negotiating tactic or in the hopes Trump might actually move forward with it.

The President was said to be persuaded by the argument to kill what he has repeatedly called the “worst trade deal ever,” despite concerns about the economic disruption that might result.

According to Canadian government sources, White House advisers pushing a more cautious approach then called Ottawa to ask for Trudeau’s assistance.

“You never know how much of it is theatre, but it didn’t feel that way,” said one senior Canadian diplomatic source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. “Maybe they’re just learning how to be a government. At least they were open to the conversation, and that stopped them doing something rash and destructive.”

Trudeau called Trump late that afternoon, and around the same time Nieto and Trump spoke by phone. By 7 p.m., the White House had issued a statement saying the President had agreed not to terminate NAFTA.

The diplomatic source suggested that the decision to reconsider was pay-off for the relationships that have been built between the Prime Minister’s Office and the White House.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister told the National Post Monday she had no comment to make. The White House did not respond by publication time to a request for comment.

Trump subsequently insisted he was not bluffing about threatening to pull out of NAFTA but that the phone calls with Trudeau and Pena Nieto prompted a change of heart.

“I like both these gentlemen very much,” Trump said. “I respect their countries very much. The relationship is very special. And I said, I will hold on the termination — let’s see if we can make it a fair deal.”

Trump acknowledged a speedy U.S. withdrawal would be a “pretty big shock to the system,” which was the basis of Trudeau’s argument. In a news conference in Saskatchewan the next day, Trudeau said he had told Trump that withdrawing from NAFTA would cost U.S. jobs.

The official readout of the call issued by the White House on April 26 deals with both the Trump-Trudeau and Trump-Nieto conversations, saying “both conversations were pleasant and productive” and that “the leaders agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation of the NAFTA deal to the benefit of all three countries.”

“It is an honor to deal with both President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Trudeau, and I believe that the end result will make all three countries stronger and better,” the readout quoted Trump as saying.

The readout the Prime Minister’s office released that evening was shorter. “The Prime Minister spoke this evening with President Trump of the United States,” it said. “The two leaders continued their dialogue on Canada-U.S. trade relations, with the Prime Minister reinforcing the importance of stability and job growth in our trade relations.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...r-nafta-threat