3 ms·

It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump-administratio

It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump-administration-outlines-goals-for-nafta-rewrite/?utm_term=.41f0a8799618 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1410/renegotiate-nafta/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... And I'm certainly not saying the renegotiated deal will be any better for middle America. Trump seems to be moving towards a traditional GOP pro-business at all costs stance. I'm not sure how economists can say it didn't hurt or barely hurt American workers when we have so many plants in Mexico today. This is the Perot v Gore debate on NAFTA. I think Perot was right. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1993-al-gore-ross-perot-entire-larry-king-live.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. If Mexico and Canada don't accept it, a renegotiation has not actually been done, only attempted and failed.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I think you are trying to mince words. Renegotiating and finalizing aren't the same thing. Just because the renegotiation failed doesn't mean there wasn't any renegotiating going on. Just because I didn't accept an offer doesn't mean I didn't negotiate. Maybe you are right, but what's your point?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    My point is that it is incorrect to point to Trump's effort as demonstrating anything that minimizes the upthread comment about the need for consensus among trading partners (and implying such a consensus is unlikely) to achieve the kind of change that was being discussed when that comment was offered. Since Trump's efforts to date neither render moot the need for consensus nor demonstrate that such consensus is within reach.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? No, it implies trying to reach such a consensus, not the existence of such a consensus. The practicality of attempting to find consensus is different than that of actually finding it. > As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is. Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus, which raised an issue of pragmatics, not legal possibility.
        Clubber 9y ago
        >Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus Hah. Pot, meet kettle.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. If Mexico and Canada don't accept it, a renegotiation has not actually been done, only attempted and failed.

Clubber 9y ago
I think you are trying to mince words. Renegotiating and finalizing aren't the same thing. Just because the renegotiation failed doesn't mean there wasn't any renegotiating going on. Just because I didn't accept an offer doesn't mean I didn't negotiate. Maybe you are right, but what's your point?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  My point is that it is incorrect to point to Trump's effort as demonstrating anything that minimizes the upthread comment about the need for consensus among trading partners (and implying such a consensus is unlikely) to achieve the kind of change that was being discussed when that comment was offered. Since Trump's efforts to date neither render moot the need for consensus nor demonstrate that such consensus is within reach.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? No, it implies trying to reach such a consensus, not the existence of such a consensus. The practicality of attempting to find consensus is different than that of actually finding it. > As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is. Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus, which raised an issue of pragmatics, not legal possibility.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        >Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus Hah. Pot, meet kettle.