Nafta we're in...we're out....we're in.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Whiplash from flip flops.

 

After saying Nafta is the worst deal and 'very very bad for us'  on the campaign trail and well into office he now decided to not terminate .......big talk and lots of drama,

huffing and puffing, turf pissing, posturing as being the tough guy and it's all about nothing. 

Add Nafta to the broken promise list. Cool.

Serving up more of the usual. Now off to give himself and his millionaire minions a nice tax break......the best, the biggest in history everrrr.
As we know he does everything bigger and better, the hostess with the mostes style. Yawn.

Border Wall ? Bahahaha......Wake me up when it's all over....

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

We'll build the wall. Mexico will pay for it... if they feel like it.

 

China is  a currency manipulators... except when they give me and my daughter some breaks and help our business...

 

Repeal and replace Obamacare... except when we don't.

 

"I'll never leave the WH'.... except every other day when I'm golfing in Florida.

 

And the list goes on and on...

[IAMX 3,055]

He's certainly flopped quite often on key positions. I don't see how anyone can justify it. It's not like his views popped out of thin air, he's been quite vocal about them for a long time.

 

I think to some degree he's realized that the establishment of both parties are a lot tougher to defeat in entirety than he thought. He cannot gut NAFTA himself.. being it's a treaty, i.e. law of the land, he must have Congress. It's clear the GOP establishment love free trades and screwing middle class workers. The Democratic Party has changed of late to also be globalist cronies, so no chance with them either. He's screwed no matter what. 

 

I really don't know what the left are celebrating here, though.. him giving up on gutting NAFTA (for however long) is not a good thing, and we know there's a snowballs chance in hell Hillary would have ever changed anything, given her and her husband were a big reason NAFTA crossed the finish line. I think the left would celebrate their own executions if it meant Trump failed at saving them.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

He's certainly flopped quite often on key positions. I don't see how anyone can justify it. It's not like his views popped out of thin air, he's been quite vocal about them for a long time.

 

I think to some degree he's realized that the establishment of both parties are a lot tougher to defeat in entirety than he thought. He cannot gut NAFTA himself.. being it's a treaty, i.e. law of the land, he must have Congress. It's clear the GOP establishment love free trades and screwing middle class workers. The Democratic Party has changed of late to also be globalist cronies, so no chance with them either. He's screwed no matter what. 

 

I really don't know what the left are celebrating here, though.. him giving up on gutting NAFTA (for however long) is not a good thing, and we know there's a snowballs chance in hell Hillary would have ever changed anything, given her and her husband were a big reason NAFTA crossed the finish line. I think the left would celebrate their own executions if it meant Trump failed at saving them.

He can sign an order to leave Nafta..not saying he will..but the Treaty makes that specific provision..just saying

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, ccneat said:

He can sign an order to leave Nafta..not saying he will..but the Treaty makes that specific provision..just saying

Not quite accurate in terms of Trump being able to pull the US out of a treaty by himself..

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trump-nafta-withdrawal-order/524463/

Quote

Jon Johnson, an adviser to the Canadian government during the original NAFTA negotiations, described this crucial phrasing earlier this year as a potential barrier for Trump’s unilateral action. “

Under the plain wording of NAFTA Article 2205, providing the written notice is simply a condition that a party has to fulfill before it proceeds to withdraw from NAFTA,” he wrote. “Providing the notice does not have the effect of causing a party to withdraw from NAFTA.”

 

What’s more, Trump might not have the lawful authority to yank the United States out of the agreement—it’s a matter of debate. Many experts believe that, under Section 125 of the Trade Act of 1974, the president possesses the authority to unilaterally withdraw from trade agreements, including NAFTA. But it’s somewhat uncharted legal territory, and not all agree. Since Congress enacted NAFTA’s provisions by passing a federal law called the Implementation Act, Johnson argues, which doesn’t grant the president the power to withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally, he can’t act on his own. “Since NAFTA was approved by Congress under the authority expressly granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause, it follows that only Congress has the power to reverse that approval and cause the United States to withdraw from NAFTA,” he concludes.

And Congress cannot delegate its authority, explicitly given to them by the Constitution, to the President. Because they are the managers of treaties, and because it's passed by an act of Congress, they would have to be the ones to ultimately undo it.

Edited April 27, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Not quite accurate in terms of Trump being able to pull the US out of a treaty by himself..

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trump-nafta-withdrawal-order/524463/

And Congress cannot delegate its authority, explicitly given to them by the Constitution, to the President.

In 2001, George W. Bush let Russia know that he intended to withdraw from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

In making his announcement, Mr. Bush declared at the White House Rose Garden, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks."

Bush didn’t seek any sort of approval from the Senate. His move went unchallenged in court and six months later the ABM Treaty was nullified. What would have happened if the Senate had challenged Bush’s authority to make this move? It’s resoundingly unclear.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter announced that the Untied States would withdraw from the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. This reflected the change in U.S. relations toward Taiwan and a growing need to deal directly with the government in Beijing. Barry Goldwater and a group of Republican senators challenged Carter’s ability to leave the treaty without permission. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, allowing Carter’s action to stand. However, the case was dismissed on a basis of standing, as Goldwater et. al. weren’t recognized as representing a formal challenge to the president’s power, but were seen as individuals acting for political reasons.

So … could Donald Trump unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA? Unless the United States Senate offered a formal court challenge, an event that seems extremely unlikely, then yes. If Trump signs the executive order as planned, NAFTA will die

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

In 2001, George W. Bush let Russia know that he intended to withdraw from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

In making his announcement, Mr. Bush declared at the White House Rose Garden, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks."

Bush didn’t seek any sort of approval from the Senate. His move went unchallenged in court and six months later the ABM Treaty was nullified. What would have happened if the Senate had challenged Bush’s authority to make this move? It’s resoundingly unclear.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter announced that the Untied States would withdraw from the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. This reflected the change in U.S. relations toward Taiwan and a growing need to deal directly with the government in Beijing. Barry Goldwater and a group of Republican senators challenged Carter’s ability to leave the treaty without permission. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, allowing Carter’s action to stand. However, the case was dismissed on a basis of standing, as Goldwater et. al. weren’t recognized as representing a formal challenge to the president’s power, but were seen as individuals acting for political reasons.

So … could Donald Trump unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA? Unless the United States Senate offered a formal court challenge, an event that seems extremely unlikely, then yes. If Trump signs the executive order as planned, NAFTA will die

Presidents can make agreements, but the ABMT was signed by Presidents/leaders, not Congress. The President does not have authority to undo acts of Congress himself. NAFTA was an act of Congress. ABMT was not. Therefore Presidents can unilaterally undo ABMT, they cannot unilaterally undo NAFTA.

Edited April 27, 2017 by IAMX

[Jacque67 7,328]

Ivanka arrived home... Figures!!!

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Jacque67 said:

Ivanka arrived home... Figures!!!

She certainly has a fan.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Jacque67 said:

Ivanka arrived home... Figures!!!

Which home? NY. MarryLago?  not the Whitehouse I hope...I am sure he sleeps in another room because of the CPAP machine..he really needs to get that septal defect looked at by a real doctor

[Jacque67 7,328]

11 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Which home? NY. MarryLago?  not the Whitehouse I hope...I am sure he sleeps in another room because of the CPAP machine..he really needs to get that septal defect looked at by a real doctor

Don't know, but Watters is going on a short vacation after his Ivanka remarks;)

then there's Jared's SF86 problem

Edited April 27, 2017 by Jacque67

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Jacque67 said:

Don't know, but Watters is going on a short vacation after his Ivanka remarks;)

Seriously...who needs to call out they are taking a four day weekend...

""I'm going to be taking a vacation with my family, so I'm not going to be here tomorrow," said Watters. "I'll be back on Monday, so don't miss me too much."

The knives are out at Fox though...rum-our has it ( listen to me would you) that SKY news agreement is in jeopardy on a morals clause because of the O'reilly connection, besides multiple hacking scandals 

 

[Jacque67 7,328]

9 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Seriously...who needs to call out they are taking a four day weekend...

""I'm going to be taking a vacation with my family, so I'm not going to be here tomorrow," said Watters. "I'll be back on Monday, so don't miss me too much."

The knives are out at Fox though...rum-our has it ( listen to me would you) that SKY news agreement is in jeopardy on a morals clause because of the O'reilly connection, besides multiple hacking scandals 

 

..Ummm...what? In the middle of a chilli bowl..

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/20/alex-jones-takes-the-stand-in-custody-battle-admits-to-cheating-on-ex-wife.html

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

..Ummm...what? In the middle of a chilli bowl..

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/20/alex-jones-takes-the-stand-in-custody-battle-admits-to-cheating-on-ex-wife.html

I just hope that when this gig runs out for Alex they resurrect the X-Files because his creativity could take it to a new level