Well, let's try this one from Canada.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3377323/tpp-was-obamas-renegotiation-of-nafta-former-trade-envoy/
Except that still is saying the opposite of what you're saying.
You are saying that Obama "renegotiated" NAFTA (and is therefore to blame for its failings) and that TPP was terrible (and its a good thing Trump killed it). The article is saying that Obama was going to use the TPP to essentially replace NAFTA and would have fixed its failings in that way, and that now that Trump killed it he's having to scramble to try to fix its failings directly. Both articles you've cited have literally said the opposite of what you've claimed.
Really not sure what you're reading, Sherry.
Directly from the article:
“TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,”
Way to look for a keyword and miss the point.
Michael Froman explained to The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos that like President Donald Trump, the former administration recognized there were issues within NAFTA. It just had a different way of tackling the problem.
Rather than threatening to scrap the North American agreement, or even re-open it, Barack Obama tried to address those issues via the TPP.
“TPP, in our view, was the renegotiation of NAFTA,” Froman said.
“That’s why [TPP] included binding and enforceable labour and environmental standards. Why it reformed inter-state dispute settlement … gave us access to to dairy and poultry for the first time in Canada, and energy in Mexico [and] dealt with new issues like the digital economy and state-owned enterprises.”
Still confused where you are going with this, Sherry.
Literally taken directly from the article:
A former U.S. trade representative says the Obama administration viewed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement as a sort of “renegotiation of NAFTA.”
I'm not "going" anywhere with anything because I'm not trying to sell an agenda. I'm pointing out that the one that you're selling is not supported by the articles you're quoting from. Also note that "a sort of" means that it's literally the opposite of being an
actual renegotiation, but that it would have accomplished some of the same goals. You know, like the article explicitly said, Obama recognized that there were problems with NAFTA too and, unlike Trump, actually had a plan to fix them (the TPP).
Our last president didn't do anything other than his disastrous Trade agreement.
Care to elaborate on this or is it just a Sean Hannity talking point? Genuinely curious. @dustinst22
Don't want to derail this thread, happy to PM about it if you'd like. In short, NAFTA cost the US a lot of jobs, drove illegal immigration to astronomical numbers, drove our trade deficit through the roof w/Mexico and Canada, and the deal has worked poorly for Mexico as well.
NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. Obama wasn't even an Illinois state senator yet.
Correct. Obama renegotiated it.
Summary: "NAFTA is a disaster and is Obama's fault."
And then
after you get called out for that not being true, you switch over to:
TPP was a renegotiation of NAFTA. Trump killed it. Thank God.
Getting caught copying someone elses statement as your own is embarrassing.
You're kidding right? They're separate trade agreements. One involved just North America and the other involves most of the countries that touch the Pacific Ocean. It's right there in their names.
Not at all. Read up on it. It's absolutely a renegotiation of NAFTA.
How the hell can you "renegotiate" a trade agreement with 10 other countries which weren't in NAFTA in the first place?
It would be more accurate (but still ridiculous) to say it was a renegotiation of the TPSEP, which the US wasn't even part of.
because it's a modification, rather than a complete scrapping of NAFTA
Summary: TPP was a disaster (for unspecified reasons) and was the "NAFTA renegotiation" I was talking about.
Of course, that can't possibly have been what you originally meant, since the TPP was never implemented so NAFTA's
current problem's couldn't possibly be Obama's fault.
And now you're trying to "win" by just getting super focused on the word "renegotiation" and claiming victory if anyone on the internet used it. My point is that all of
your points are literally the opposite of the
point of the articles you're claiming as support.