4 ms·

Trump might be fighting for a good cause, but he is doing it in the most stupid way. The road to hell is paved ... Case in point: the original TPP had plenty

Trump might be fighting for a good cause, but he is doing it in the most stupid way. The road to hell is paved ... Case in point: the original TPP had plenty of protection for American IP. The orange demagogue ditched the treaty, all the other countries removed those protections and now he wants to come back. The pattern of stupidity is pretty obvious: the US needs international allies to prevail against China, but it won't get any ally with an "America first always" policy.

StevePerkins 9y ago
> the original TPP had plenty of protection for IP. The orange demagogue ditched the treaty You mean the same position taken by the other party's entire field in that election? (even if you suspect that Clinton's opposition was disingenuous, and forced by pressure from Sanders)
- diego_moita 9y ago
  As in: "I am not wrong because everyone else is doing it"? Anyway, I am not too concerned with your country's future since I am not American.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    Don't be mean. We're all just talking, we're friends.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    The world economy is not a zero-sum game. You're making the same mistake that Trump is. Everyone benefits from China, the United States, Europe et al becoming (and staying) rich and prosperous. We should all be concerned.
    - chillacy 9y ago
      This is true, but status is always relative to others, and I get the impression that those with more nationalist leanings would prefer a slightly worse off America if China would remain a 3rd world country instead of rising to challenge America on the world stage.
- acdha 9y ago
  There’s a difference between saying it needed to be changed and ceding economic leadership to China. Trump’s flip-flop is presumably after hearing from large businesses about the cost of being left out entirely versus changes they would have been comfortable with.
bwb 9y ago
well said on TPP, we should be in that than out. Unfortunately it became a political talking point, rather than a real discussion.
- 18pfsmt 9y ago
  The concerns I saw raised were about subverting sovereign power while elevating corporate power. I didn't read the source documents myself, but I would before getting too deep into the weeds on this topic. Certainly, walking away from the table with some doctrine of, "unilateral agreements only" is shortsighted.

StevePerkins 9y ago

> the original TPP had plenty of protection for IP. The orange demagogue ditched the treaty You mean the same position taken by the other party's entire field in that election? (even if you suspect that Clinton's opposition was disingenuous, and forced by pressure from Sanders)

diego_moita 9y ago
As in: "I am not wrong because everyone else is doing it"? Anyway, I am not too concerned with your country's future since I am not American.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Don't be mean. We're all just talking, we're friends.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  The world economy is not a zero-sum game. You're making the same mistake that Trump is. Everyone benefits from China, the United States, Europe et al becoming (and staying) rich and prosperous. We should all be concerned.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    This is true, but status is always relative to others, and I get the impression that those with more nationalist leanings would prefer a slightly worse off America if China would remain a 3rd world country instead of rising to challenge America on the world stage.
acdha 9y ago
There’s a difference between saying it needed to be changed and ceding economic leadership to China. Trump’s flip-flop is presumably after hearing from large businesses about the cost of being left out entirely versus changes they would have been comfortable with.

bwb 9y ago

well said on TPP, we should be in that than out. Unfortunately it became a political talking point, rather than a real discussion.

18pfsmt 9y ago
The concerns I saw raised were about subverting sovereign power while elevating corporate power. I didn't read the source documents myself, but I would before getting too deep into the weeds on this topic. Certainly, walking away from the table with some doctrine of, "unilateral agreements only" is shortsighted.