Trump Threatens to Leave World Trade Organization

The New American ^ | 02 August 2016 | Steve Byas

[trisham]

Who's being a phony?

"From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our product, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never ever let you down."

Donald Trump

1/20/17

[Gen-X-Dad]

We are the largest consumer market. We are the richest country and most prosperous country with a ton of natural resources at our disposal. We have become the largest debtor nation with the largest trade deficit for decades because globalist keep claiming how wonderful globalism is for the USA. Guess what, Trump got elected because globalism is not great for the average citizen. We don’t have to belong to any group, they need us more than we need them. It is long overdue to fix this mess for the future of our country.

[factoryrat]

Sure, okay. Thanks for the suggestion. We have plenty of oil in the US. Let the Canadians sell their sludge to china. Oh, and lets slap a tariff on all imported crude oil too, while encouraging domestic oil production with plenty of financial incentives.

[Alberta's Child]

Let's go back and review the whole purpose of Trump's involvement in this issue in the first place.

A presidential approval is required for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access projects because these pipelines cross a border between the U.S. and another country. That's it. If this were a domestic pipeline there would have been no presidential approval required at all.

So if an energy company needs U.S. approval for a pipeline across the border, President Trump is going to include a "Made in the USA" mandate as a condition of his approval -- even for an 80 mile segment of a pipeline between Williston, North Dakota and the Canadian border.

And yet another energy company that wants to build a pipeline along a 1600+ mile route between Williston, ND and Port Arthur, Texas is free to use materials from any source they wish -- foreign or domestic ... because the pipeline is entirely within the U.S.

This is the kind of idiocy I would have expected from the Obama administration. I never would have imagined that I'd see it right here on FreeRepublic.

[trisham]

As I said...

[Alberta's Child]

Right. I think that works both ways, doesn’t it?

[trebb]

So you’d be perfectly comfortable if the U.S. government imposed a condition that said every company building a pipeline in the U.S. must have 50% of its workforce comprised of women, 15% comprised of African-Americans, 20% comprised, of Hispanics, etc.?

LOL! You're now starting to flail.

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. Government has the say about whether or not it happens and can stipulate conditions/terms to allow or deny it.

I was addressing this statement of your, which states very clearly that the U.S. government can impose its own conditions on a permit approval.

So if Barack Obama said that only energy companies that invest millions of dollars in "green energy" would be allowed to build pipelines in the U.S., you'd be OK with that?

[trebb]

I'm talking conditions, in line with protecting American interests, and you're countering with affirmative action (post before this) and telling companies to do things irrelevant to the actual contract/job at hand - now who's going irrelevant?

Tell you what - you see totalitarianism behind every Trump rock and I see patriotism and looking out for the interests of the People.

I'm sticking to my story, you're sticking to yours (no matter how hard you gotta twist things), so let's stop banging our heads against each other since neither of us is going to give in.

[Alberta's Child]

This reminds me of the discussions we had here on FR when the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11. Some of us warned that it would promote an intrusive and authoritarian Federal government — especially with a Democrat in the White House ... while many folks here were 100% behind it only because the @sshole who signed it into law was a Republican.

[trebb]

I didn’t agree with the Patriot Act - it is also not relevant to the argument.