Slashdot Mirror


Why Did Japan Just Ratify The TPP? (businesstimes.com.sg)

The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership can't go into effect without U.S. approval, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has acknowledged. Yet despite president-elect Trump's promise to withdraw from the agreement -- Friday Japan's parliament voted to approve it. An anonymous reader quotes the Business Times. Was last Friday's vote simply a Quixotic tribute to a dying cause or -- as some are asking -- does Mr. Abe know something that others don't? They note that he is the only foreign leader to have met with the anointed heir to the U.S. presidency since the election result was announced. What went on in New York's Trump Tower during that "informal" meeting is unknown but some speculate that there may have been some equally informal -- but nonetheless significant -- dealmaking between the two men on the TPP. This seems quite possible, analysts say, because the TPP is of great importance to Japan and to Mr. Abe's grand design for Japan to remain a pivotal Asia-Pacific power.
The EFF has decried "the intense push to ram Internet issues into international law through the TPP," and complained Friday that Japan's newly-passed law "includes the extension of Japan's copyright term from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author, which makes today a very sad day for Japan's public domain."

And in addition, "There remains a risk that other TPP countries such as Singapore -- and even countries that weren't part of the original deal, such as Taiwan -- will soon also bring their domestic legislation into conformity with the requirements of this dead agreement."

225 comments

  1. What do you mean, "WHY"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Abe has used so much political capital and arm-twisting to push through this agreement over a large and diverse group of objecting people and organizations, that it would have gone through just on its own inertia.

    And, of course, the LDP hopes that the US of Trump will recognize it both as the rightful owner of Japanese politics, and the obedient servant of the US it has always been.

    Also, Trump may well change his stance on the agreement, it isn't like his views on things were ever clear, coherent, well thought-out and consistent.

    In fact, it is usually exactly the opposite.

    1. Re:What do you mean, "WHY"? by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, the new and exciting world of post-truth, where all you need is an opinion and an inflated ego. It worked for Trump, so it must work for everybody else.

      It is obvious why they do this: They want the TPP to work, and they are sending a political signal, not least to Trump. but also to other, interested parties in the region. Basically, what they say is: "We want closer cooperation - ideally with the US, but we might get this to work without." I haven't studied the details (or even the headlines, tbh) of the TPP, but given the internet, easy travel, trans-national corporations etc, globalisation is a fact, and if the US want to isolate themselves, the rest of the world will go on without. You may point to Brexit, but the take-away point here is that UK is in no way talking about isolationism - quite the opposite, in fact: they want to become more international than they felt they were able to in EU (I don't agree with Brexit, but that's beside the point). Globalisation will happen with you or to you; I think it is better to take active part in the processes and see if you can influence them in your favour. By refusing to be part of it and sulking in a corner, all you achieve is to be left out of influence.

    2. Re:What do you mean, "WHY"? by imgod2u · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've studied the TPP. That anyone who is in favor of American exceptionalism would be against it is mind-blowing. The U.S. and Japan basically bullied a bunch of smaller but up-and-coming countries to play by Westernized rules with a lot of exceptions that American and Japanese industries don't have to follow those same rules as swiftly (think agriculture, which is exempt from a lot of the TPP tariff reductions).

      It basically extends U.S. corporate hegemony to China's doorstep. And before you go all "but but corporations are greedy!" you want American corporations to do well more than you want a Chinese state-sponsored company to do well.

    3. Re:What do you mean, "WHY"? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      It basically extends U.S. corporate hegemony to China's doorstep. And before you go all "but but corporations are greedy!" you want American corporations to do well more than you want a Chinese state-sponsored company to do well.

      Which is one of the reasons why China are very active in the South China Sea and establishing themselves there: they are more or less hemmed in by American interests - a long tail of islands stretching from Japan down to Taiwan, then from Taiwan to the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia. To the Chinese it is like a long string of Cubas, which is just one island that the US used to feel assertive about.

      That apart, I'm not sure what you are saying here - are you saying that it is better if American greed is successful rather than a Chinese state-owned company? I'm not sure I agree - as I understand it, in an American company, you can basically be fired on a whim with no notice period (this is from my American friends), whereas in a Chinese state-owned company, a worker is nearly impossible to fire for any reason, which is why these companies have traditionally had a reputation for inefficiency. I think it would be nice if the Chinese model was more successful than the American one, for obvious reasons.

  2. The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our completely-unaccountable-to-voters State Department is still trying to get TPP to pass despite the political environment changing around them. Japan ratified because they want a good relationship with the people who will still be in charge when Trump takes office.

    1. Re:The President is not the State Department by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Japan ratified because they want a good relationship with the people who will still be in charge when Trump takes office.

      That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:The President is not the State Department by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This assumes Obama doesn't sign the TPP before the end of December.

      He could sign the agreement, and convene the senate, or failing that, the agreement will automatically go into affect,
      then Trump won't be able to kill it.....

    3. Re:The President is not the State Department by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I don't think Trump really does want to kill it.
      He said so as a "sales pitch" to the voters and as a vector to attack Hillary, just like he attacked her for being too close to ex-Goldman Sachs people.
      Since the original point of the TPP was to put the squeeze on China (with all the bits nobody likes being sweeteners to other nations to join in), the TPP is just the sort of thing crafted for something like Trumps silly idea of a trade war with China.


      No point mentioning Obama - he was not in the loop when Abe flew in from Japan to talk to Trump a few weeks ago.
      Better start learning to grow backyard vegetables kids, Trump looks like he wants a replay of the rough end of the 1930s.

    4. Re:The President is not the State Department by Desler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's your problem right there. Actually believing anything that comes out of Trump's mouth. He's broken numerous campaign promises and he's not even in office yet.

    5. Re:The President is not the State Department by dbIII · · Score: 2

      That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.

      I expect that view is going to appear to be very naive some time around February. Why trust anything he's said given his track record? If we are naive enough to believe that Trump really wants a trade war with China then the TPP is the instrument that has been built over years to do that. So which Trump lie is the real lie today? Are you wrong? Me? Both?

      I'm betting he's screwing over the voters who have already given him what he wants instead of screwing over Abe who is yet to deliver what Trump wants.

    6. Re:The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can't sign anything unless it goes through congress, and the republicans in congress said they will not bring it up for ratification vote because Trump said he wants to see it die and they want to stay in line with Trump...

    7. Re: The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. People are idiots. I think most missed the part where he said he would renegotiate it. They were too busy being excited about a White man who wasn't afraid to call out the politically correct that they didn't see the giant dildo he was greasing up for them.

    8. Re:The President is not the State Department by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.

      What Trump said is irrelevant. What matters is how much he likes the people who will benefit from it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:The President is not the State Department by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Unless it's an anti-abortion case. Then they can't wait to approve it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the last time, hiring GS people is completely different than being owned by GS people.

    11. Re:The President is not the State Department by fnj · · Score: 1

      In your dreams, globalist shill.

    12. Re:The President is not the State Department by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      There's your problem right there. Actually believing anything that comes out of Trump's mouth. He's broken numerous campaign promises and he's not even in office yet.

      I'm seeing more and more anti-Trumpers displaying annoyance that he appears to be adopting more moderate positions. Why? The anti-Trumps were unhappy that he wanted to deport illegal immigrants, now those very same people appear to be unhappy that he won't.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re:The President is not the State Department by dehachel12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how is that? I don't see any difference in the end result.

    14. Re:The President is not the State Department by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.

      As with the Investigatory Powers Act in the UK, there are two kinds of people in the general population when it comes to TPP: Those that are against it and those that haven't heard of it. The latter group is a lot larger. If there's something that will make the second group happy, it will more than offset doing something that will make the first group unhappy. And Trump can always smile and say 'well, you know, I was against TPP when Crooked Hillary was behind it, but we've made some changes and the new one is a lot better. A lot of the people who were moaning about it, they hadn't read it, and I hadn't read it. Now I know what it says, and now that we've removed the bits that Crooked Hillary really liked, now we can pass it and it will make America great again.'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:The President is not the State Department by Desler · · Score: 1

      You must be extremely right-wing to think anything he's done lately is a "moderate" position.

    16. Re:The President is not the State Department by Desler · · Score: 0

      Hey look an Alex Jones cock sucker. How quaint.

    17. Re:The President is not the State Department by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You must be extremely right-wing to think anything he's done lately is a "moderate" position.

      I'm not right-wing. I'm not even white. I'm merely wondering why those people who complained about his previous stance on immigration now complaining he won't follow through.

      Do you have an answer to this?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    18. Re:The President is not the State Department by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Japan ratified because they want a good relationship with the people who will still be in charge when Trump takes office.

      That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.

      I think that he wasn't talking about Americans. Probably the rest of the world, or perhaps China. There are dangers of isolation ahead.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, haters gonna hate. What can we say?

    20. Re:The President is not the State Department by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Translation: Fuck, the asshole hired Goldman Sachs people, I need some way to argue myself out this box my stupidity put me in.

      He's populated his cabinet with like-minded bazillionaires (well, presuming the Senate approves). Simply put, you voted for the Elite, but this is an Elite unconstrained by even a modicum of decency.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:The President is not the State Department by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I don't see anyone complaining about the more moderate positions. I see people shadenfreuding over people who voted Trump.

      He's turning out to be a decent Democratic President.

    22. Re:The President is not the State Department by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Watch what he does, not what he says.

    23. Re:The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got something against cock suckers, asshole?

    24. Re:The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Republican party is still going to roll-back a number of progressive policies (ACA, Social Security, Medicare), and will likely appoint one or more extremely conservative supreme court justices, all because Trump managed to convince a bunch of unskilled dumb-fucks that he'll solve their problems using a bunch of outlandish claims and promises.

      Personally, I want Trump to implement his stupid ideas so the idiots who believe he can turn the clock back to their idealized version of America that existed 60 years ago learn the hard way how idiotic they are. Stupidity should be painful.

    25. Re:The President is not the State Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan ratified because they want a good relationship with the people who will still be in charge when Trump takes office.

      That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.

      The TPP is going ahead, with or without the USA. If the USA is not a partner, the USA will have trouble selling their goods into that new common market.

    26. Re:The President is not the State Department by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing more and more anti-Trumpers displaying annoyance that he appears to be adopting more moderate positions.

      No you're not. You are seeing annoyance that so many people voted for Trump because it was obvious to the anti-Trumpers that he is a worthless lying toad and the man himself is already confirming that.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  3. As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad the US is pulling out of TPP. We should have it so 20 years after creation of a work it goes into public domain, hosted on a .gov server. This will allow poor people more access to educational materials and culturally relevant material so they can make better media themselves. This will up the quality of future media and also preserved media from being lost.

  4. Re:As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad the US is pulling out of TPP.

    I wish. The wheeling and dealing in Trump Tower was probably an agreement to supply Japan with nukes as long as they're on board with a resurrected super-pro-business TPP.

  5. Re:~~~ China Hoverboard ~~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Genuine Samsung Long Life Battery

    What could possibly go wrong??

  6. It's about Crushing the Agricultural Association. by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It has nothing to do with international affairs, it has one main national goal : taking on the Agricultural Association tht has more money and power than the government. The Japanese Agricultural Association (JA) is a very powerfull association that distorts vast amounts of money from the Japanese farmers like Italian mobsters. Money that the government wants to have but it did not have any means to take on the JA. Until the TPP came around. Nobody here in Japan knows that the TPP is also about copyrights. As far as most people know, it's about agricultural goods and meat coming freely into the country without having all kinds of associations like JA being able to control that.

  7. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost like everyone said it was dead without it actually being killed off for some reason. Like maybe people would stop talking about it if it died.
    That's weird, why would they do something disingenuous like that?
    As for Trump saying he'd kill it off, it'd be the only thing he does that he said he was going to so I already don't believe it.
    No though, everyone does what they say they're going to do in politics because they're held accountable for it.

  8. Taiwan? by srw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did you just call Taiwan a country? China's gonna be pissed!

    1. Re:Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taiwan is a country. It has well-defined territory, well-defined residency on that territory, and a legitimate government recognized by the international community in every sense but in name.

      China is merely a political regime, a construct with no legitimacy.

    2. Re:Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taiwan is the real China. What most people call China today is not legitimate.

    3. Re:Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Taiwan isn't a country. The Republic of China (ROC) is a country, with Taiwan comprising the majority of its present territory.
      Their flag is the ROC flag, their anthem is the ROC anthem, all their money says ROC, one of their two main political parties is the Kuomintang (i.e., the Nationalist party that fought the Communists in the Chinese Civil War), and their vehicle license plates say "Taiwan Province" on them. Only ultra-progressives in the Taiwan Independence movement actually consider "Taiwan", rather than the ROC, to be a country.

      Although the average person in Taiwan has a very distinct "Taiwanese" identity (vs a Mainland Chinese identity), the country is still organized as the Republic of China. I think it's slowly shifting towards a "Taiwan" identity, but it's a very slow shift. A big part of that is probably because they want to maintain the status quo with China (the PRC). While I was living there, they changed the postage stamps to have TAIWAN printed on them instead of REPUBLIC OF CHINA. When I first noticed it, I pointed it out to a native friend of mine, and his reaction was, "Oh shoot! China is going to invade!" (i.e., most people in Taiwan don't consider screwing with the status quo with the PRC to be worth the risk.)

    4. Re:Taiwan? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 4, Funny

      No.

      Betteridge's Law is clear, the answer is no. No one called Taiwan a country, and Japan ratified the TPP because no. It's a law, like gravity, so it is clear. No.

    5. Re:Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes a country "legitimate?"

    6. Re:Taiwan? by Wuhao · · Score: 3, Funny

      What makes a country "legitimate?"

      Twitter followers

    7. Re:Taiwan? by LongNose · · Score: 1

      Sorry for my mod. I meant to click funny.

    8. Re:Taiwan? by Xest · · Score: 2

      A lot of people don't really understand how a country is defined, including yourself.

      A country is merely a defined political division, that means it needs some kind of border, but even a government isn't technically necessary - consider Iraq post 2003 invasion, administered by the US and it's allies with the Iraqi government ousted, but still very much a country in itself, it didn't simply cease to exist as such. Taiwan most definitely is a country. This is much the same as England, Scotland, and Wales, which are also individual countries, but comprise the nation state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In this respect England demonstrates also why mere political division is sufficient to define a country as England doesn't have it's own government, it's governed by the government of the United Kingdom as a whole.

      Countries can exist within countries, the presence of an overarching country does not mean Taiwan is not in itself also a country.

      I doubt even China would have a problem with calling Taiwan a country, they'd have a problem if you start treating it like an independent nation state though by calling it's government and speaking to them directly, or if you started using the word "independent" when referring to Taiwan as a country.

      The problem is that people all too often use country as shorthand for independent sovereign state, but whilst all independent sovereign nation states are countries, not all countries are independent sovereign states, so it's important to not confuse the two.

    9. Re:Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just call Taiwan a country? China's gonna be pissed!

      At the risk of incurring the wrath of Donald Trump I'll add insult to injury and call Russia an enemy.

    10. Re: Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe's opinion.

    11. Re:Taiwan? by vyvepe · · Score: 1

      Posted to undo bad moderation.

    12. Re:Taiwan? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Frankly? Conquest. The conqueror gets to define the boundaries. Taiwan will remain within the borders conquered by Chiang Kai-shek's army until such time that it either willingly incorporates itself into another territory or is itself conquered.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Taiwan? by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people don't really understand how a country is defined, including yourself.

      A country is merely a defined political division, that means it needs some kind of border, but even a government isn't technically necessary

      I think your definition of country is a bit too broad, unless you think the third ward of Houston, Texas, United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is a country, or that any city, state, subdivision, etc is a country. If that is your stance, then your definition is beyond silly; it is useless. To try to make the spirit of your definition work, I would suggest that a country is a geographic area with a political identity but which is not a subdivision of any larger political identity.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    14. Re:Taiwan? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I rather think you missed the point, a country is not ANY defined political division. It's A defined political division.

      There's a subtle difference there that you've failed to interpret. Your definition already fails in the face of England, Scotland, and Wales, because they are subdivisions of larger political identities (Great Britain) but are also countries.

      Typically whether a geographic area is defined as a country or not depends on it's history as much as anything - this is why Taiwan is deemed a country because historically it always was, whereas Northern Ireland is not because it never was, even though it's siblings in England, Scotland, and Wales are.

    15. Re:Taiwan? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Not a fan of the Trumperor at all, but as far as I'm concerned he can talk to whoever he likes. China can go pound sand.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Taiwan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But with your definition, an empire couldn't exist.

      Empires are governments that rule over countries. Like the US federal government (because the states are independently governed states and are countries in and of themselves) or the EU (more obvious, but the same idea).

    17. Re:Taiwan? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That is actually a pretty good description of it. One thing you might want to think about is, how does a country differ from a state? (And the distinction most Americans make is incorrect). For example, before a unified Germany existed Bavaria was an independent state, but it was not a country.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    18. Re:Taiwan? by Xest · · Score: 1

      There's definitely a lot of ambiguity and I don't really know the answer to that one, you're right in that it's tricky, I don't think state in itself is particularly helpful unless it's prefixed with something - nation state, sovereign state, and so on. I think the problem is the term state is used much too interchangeably to denote everything from provinces, to dependencies, to individual countries, to amalgamations of countries. It's become a kind of catch all term that means completely different things depending on context.

      If it were up to me though I'd just call the individual states in the US provinces like every other country does and mitigate at least some of the confusion, but I understand that might ruffle some feathers though :)

    19. Re:Taiwan? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The problem there is that the individual states in the U.S. are supposed to be considered sovereign states which have yielded a modicum of their sovereignty to the federal government. Although in practice they function much more like provinces than like sovereign states. However, every so often an issue comes up where the states function in relation to the federal government as they were intended.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  9. I read something else by Xenographic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Was last Friday's vote simply a Quixotic tribute to a dying cause or -- as some are asking -- does Mr. Abe know something that others don't?

    I read something else in this part. Obama killed the TPP because Trump was against it and he couldn't pass it in the lame duck session, so he might as well deny others credit for killing the deal he & Hillary negotiated.

    So I assume they're wondering if Abe either knows that Hillary has a non-zero chance or they think Trump could be persuaded to go for it.

    Personally, whatever happens, I want this to die and stay dead.

    1. Re:I read something else by dbIII · · Score: 1, Interesting

      or they think Trump could be persuaded to go for it

      Abe flew to the USA to meet Trump a few weeks ago. I think we are seeing some of the results of their discussion.

    2. Re:I read something else by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Persuad Trump? He's flip-flopped on all kinds of stuff already, and it's not like suddenly people started telling him "No, that is a stupid idea because of A B and C". And since he's got significant assets in IP, it would not surprise me at all for him to try to push TPP through.

      He's also the first person to call out "Booorrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggg" during the President’s Daily Security Briefing.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:I read something else by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

      He agreed to sign it if they renamed it the Trump Pacific Partnership

    4. Re:I read something else by Dracos · · Score: 2

      The entire corporate establishment wants the TTP, there's too much at stake for them if it dies. Trump doesn't really give a shit about it, but he's not about to pass up some gain for himself if he threatens to kills it.

    5. Re:I read something else by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's flip-flopped on all kinds of stuff already

      Sure, he's flipped on a lot of issues, but opposition to free trade, along with restricting immigration, were his two big signature issues. If he flips on those, then he stands for absolutely nothing.

      Disclaimer: As someone who didn't vote for him, I have been happy to see all his flipping to positions that actually make sense, and I would be even happier if he flips on these as well. But his supporters would rightfully feel betrayed.

    6. Re:I read something else by davester666 · · Score: 1, Informative

      he's already flipped on building the wall and expelling all illegal immigrants...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:I read something else by dehachel12 · · Score: 2

      >s. If he flips on those, then he stands for absolutely nothing.
      you may want to lookup kleptocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:I read something else by DrEasy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure he's opposed to free trade. He's mostly said that the existing deals were bad. He wants to re-negotiate trades that he considers bad. That doesn't make him anti-free trade.

      Now Sanders was clearly anti-free trade.

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    9. Re: I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Sanders is the only one who would have improved this country.

    10. Re:I read something else by gtall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I take exception that Trump stands for absolutely nothing. He stands for himself, and only himself. He'd throw the U.S. under bus if it suited his purpose.

      His modus operandi is well-known. He sees something he doesn't agree with (today, tomorrow might be a different story), finds an opposing figure or group, starts a food fight like he was in high school, and then counters the inevitable blowback with a wookie defense.

    11. Re: I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you mean a health care system that is hugely expensive and highly profitable for insurance companies while producing substandard health and is only practicably accessible if you have a full time job, is a _bad_ thing? Woah!

    12. Re:I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person would have to be pretty naive to think that wasn't just a bunch of redneck jive to feed the rubes... And it worked to an extent... The TPP will never die, and his campaign stance on that was just more bullshit to engage Killary.. The guy is an asshole, but he put down the damn democrats pretty good. Fuck them. Their unwillingness to actually put up real opposition convinced enough people to stay home to hand him the victory. So, like, whatever. The voters are idiots. Y'all got what you asked for. Go suck an egg...

    13. Re:I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now Sanders was clearly anti-free trade.

      Yeah, he was for fair trade. That's one reason why the democrats sunk his campaign, and their dumbass fanboys went for it... Trump is a democrat in republican clothing. Both factions are getting what they wanted. Now do you understand why majority rule sucks? The voters are conservative fascist assholes... The politicians reflect them perfectly

    14. Re:I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      He'd throw the U.S. under bus if it suited his purpose.

      What the hell do you think the fucking democrats were doing? Don't be an idiot fanboy. Trump is no worse

    15. Re:I read something else by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But his supporters would rightfully feel betrayed.

      Rightfully? No, I disagree. they knowingly voted for a very dodgy guy who was prepared to simply make stuff up on a regular basis and who's claimed positions clearly were at odds with his actions, then well, if he flip flops yet again, they can hardly claim it was unexpected.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:I read something else by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Sure, he's flipped on a lot of issues, but opposition to free trade, along with restricting immigration, were his two big signature issues. If he flips on those, then he stands for absolutely nothing.

      Annnnnd Bingo! He stands for very little other than himself, which is close enough to nothing for all intents.

      Now if for some weird reason he and congress decides to stand firm on so many of these issues, the US will begin to find itself isolated as the world moves on. Isolation will lead to dropping the dollar as the standard currency, and adopting the yen.

      The TPP won't be the sole reason, but since the world is very interconnected, it will be come a death by a thousand cuts situation.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re: I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The democrats were paying attention to social problems, instead of catering to the rich.

      Oh please! Stop being being an idiot! Try to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.

    18. Re:I read something else by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    19. Re:I read something else by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the parts of the TPP that were bad were the intellectual property bits - and the bit about letting multinational corporations bypass local rules. Trump gave no indication that he's opposed to those things. In fact, his 'winning is everything' ethic might actually favor them.

      The parts of the TTP that were good - yes there were some, and that's where Hillary's 'gold standard' quote came from - had to do with environmental and labor standards that previous trade deals had not included or made enforceable. That plus the prospect of serving as a counterweight to China in the region. On those issues, Trump probably either doesn't care - or doesn't know enough to have an opinion.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    20. Re:I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GAH you're retarded. Wee-todd-did. What are you going to do next, link to a Wikipedia article "proving" with "facts" that Trump is mind controlled by the Illuminati?

      SO cute! [citation needed]

    21. Re:I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. It's happening faster in this worldline. Stay away from major cities beginning in 2018... maybe sooner, but I assume it'll still take a full year for the Second Great Depression to start to hit.

    22. Re:I read something else by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      And he's not going to put Hillary in jail either, so add that to the growing list of flip-flops he's done.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    23. Re:I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama didn't kill the TPP because of Trump, he killed it (sort of, he actually supported it) to appease Sanders supporters.

      Anyone who thinks anything Trump said yesterday is going to mean anything tomorrow just hasn't been paying attention. Global corporations want TPP and they'll get it, maybe by another name, but they'll get it.

      A billionaire (or so he says) with a cabinet filled with other billionaires isn't going to go against multi-nationals when they sit on their boards or own huge amounts of their stock or both.

    24. Re:I read something else by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      It's hard to judge him fully during the PEOTUS period, but his "success" with the Carrier issue was pretty anemic, and as far as i can tell he made no attempt to intervene in the GOP's (mostly successful) attempt to strip the "buy American" portion of the waterways bill.

      So he hasn't _actively_ worked in favor of free trade yet, but his opposition to it has been pretty weak sauce.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    25. Re: I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The democrats were paying attention to social problems

      Unless you happen to live in the flyover states, then you were white trash and they wanted to disown you.

    26. Re:I read something else by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      So I assume they're wondering if Abe either knows that Hillary has a non-zero chance or they think Trump could be persuaded to go for it.

      Clinton came out against the TPP too, so whether it's Clinton or Trump, it'd involve them both breaking their campaign promises.

      so he might as well deny others credit for killing the deal he & Hillary negotiated.

      Clinton didn't have a lot to do with the final form of the TPP, most of the seriously contentious stuff coming after 2012. Most of the negotiations involved John Kerry's State Department after she left. It was a very easy decision for her to disassociate herself from it.

      At this stage I don't think anyone seriously thinks Clinton will become President, so whether Abe slept through the election or not, that's not what he's considering. A more likely scenario is that over the next four years someone other than Trump will become President. That might be because he's impeached, it might be that enough electors switch votes to force the election of someone else, or he might lose interest once he's forced to do the job.

      That leaves a fairly wide opening for the TPP, especially assuming the replacement is a Republican.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:I read something else by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Russia is opposed to the TPP, even if the US business establishment is in favor.

      Like I posted below, Abe's logic is more likely to be that Trump is unlikely to serve an entire term, and his replacement - assuming it's a Republican - will be very likely to be pro-TPP.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    28. Re: I read something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow ur dumb! Abe met with Obummer in Hawaii recent ly. Would that have anything to do with it?

    29. Re:I read something else by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Electoral College hasn't voted yet, and there appear to be more people than usual who aren't going to vote for their Party's candidate. There's three possibilities:

      The defections don't cost Trump his majority. He wins

      Enough electors defect from Trump to Clinton to give her the Presidency.

      Enough electors defect from Trump to deny him a majority, but Clinton does not pick up those votes. In that case, the House chooses between Trump, Clinton, and the third-place electoral vote getter, who is likely to be a Republican, and will then become President.

      It's complicated by laws binding electors to their Party candidate,which means it's likely that the Supreme Court will have to interpret what the Constitution says about electors.

      Anyone know what Pence thinks about the TPP?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  10. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fine with giving Japan nukes if it helps me get to retirement faster. Then I'll move to the Southern Hemisphere.

  11. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    Interesting! I didn't know why Japan had so strong regulations on food imports, but now I do.

  12. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that distorts vast amounts of money from the Japanese farmers

    I'm all for distorting money. I distort my banknotes daily so they fit in a folded wallet.

  13. On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by dbIII · · Score: 5, Informative

    On November 18 Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, visited the USA and spoke to Trump.
    Abe is now passing Japan's part of the TPP.

    Haven't you guys worked out yet that what Trump said before the election and what he is going to do are different things? He's got a very long history of promising various deals and not delivering.

    1. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by whodunit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe we should wait until his ASS ACTUALLY HITS THE CHAIR IN THE FUCKING OVAL OFFICE BEFORE WHINING ABOUT HIM BREAKING HIS PROMISES.

      Unless you plan to do that anyway, no matter what, in which case have the common fucking decency to at least PRETEND you're waiting to see what he does. In my day we did our oppo research by breaking into places and jimmying file cabinets open - in the dark, because flashlights would get you Watergated! Now you kids just "hack into something." Or send some DUMBASS an email that says "gib login pls" and Bob's yer uncle!

      GET OFF MY LAWN!

    2. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like Obama did, eh? Or nah?

    3. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      naww, ill whine now. get it over with early, like early christmas shopping. not worried about him not keeping his promise to not keep his promises.,, wait, what?

    4. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine Trump after the election being any worse than Trump before the election. In many ways, he seems to be moving in the right direction. I imagine that some of the people who voted for him will be less happy though.

    5. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by gtall · · Score: 1

      Hehehe...including to American banks which now have a standing policy to never invest in his companies again.

    6. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's even simpler than that. The Japanese government has been working on getting TPP through for years. It's been a long, hard fight. To give up now would be to admit defeat, so better to just pass it, claim their victory and then (fairly) blame its failure on the change of government in the US.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should wait until his ASS ACTUALLY HITS THE CHAIR IN THE FUCKING OVAL OFFICE BEFORE WHINING ABOUT HIM BREAKING HIS PROMISES.

      Why? He's already broken promises. In fact, he's pretty much admitted that some of the things he said was only to get elected.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good point. We shouldn't even allow campaign promises. We should just put random people in office, THEN see if they do a good job. It's totally unfair to try to judge people before they have even been given a chance.

    9. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Boronx · · Score: 1

      What he told Abe and what he does will be two totally different things. We will find out the hard way that fucking over every foreign leader is not the same as fucking over the guy who installs your curtains. We will find out, but Trump won't since he won't be hurt personally by any of the blowback.

    10. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah lets announce Hillary will get prosecuted so all those backwards liberals have a chance to protest, make up fake stories, blame Russia, spin shit on the news, disrupt the inauguration, etc.

      Why wouldn't he say "special prosecutor, bitches!!" ??

    11. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I would believe a fake news site like cnn.

    12. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think you've got that backwards. Trump will fuck you over instead of the nice Japanese man with the flattering comments.

    13. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Until the Chinese Premier tells Trump what Abe said about him in private.

    14. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Epic fail - those two detest each other especially since Abe keeps baiting the Chinese by visiting shrines where war criminals are buried.

    15. Re:On November 18 Abe spoke to Trump by Boronx · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be true.

  14. 12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by raymorris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Twelve countries are party to TPP. It only has to be ratified by six in order to become binding (on those six). As currently written, the US and Japan have to be among the six, but certainly the other 11, or some of them, could decide to put it into effect among themselves. TPP can exist without the US, if Japan is included. Heck, the US isn't party to a precursor of TPP, the Transpacific Economic Partnership Agreement.

    Also, Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow - he may never become president. After all these years of negotiations, there's no reason for Japan to just drop it, based only on something someone said during a campaign; people say all kinds of things during campaigns. The US could even ratify TPP in 2020, after Trump leaves office. (At least I don't know if any time limit offhand.)

    1. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      At the very least, there is going to be a renegotiation of the trade deal if the US drops out. Trade is critical to the growth of the world economy, and if the US wants to play isolationist and not reap those benefits, other countries will bind together to do so.

      More realistically, Trump is playing another con game. While he seems to prefer to produce his clothing in Mexico(which is why a tariff is not likely to happen), the building material for his developments still overwhelming come from Asia. Even Congress when given an opportunity to establish that we use only US materials to build using US tax dollars was unwilling to impose that restriction. Furthermore, his daughter depends on Asia to produce her goods.

      So what we know is anything that streamlines trade with Asia makes Trump rich, and anything that makes it harder makes him less rich. Now, Trump may want to renegotiate the deal on specific points that do not benefit his company, so it makes sense that he would be talking about not ratifying the deal as a negotiating tactic.

      But if you want to know what will happen, look in the news about how the supply chain for US manufacturers is world wide, how any disruption with Asia would raise prices and cost jobs, and the number of Goldman Sachs former executives in his cabinet.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The US could even ratify TPP in 2020, after Trump leaves office

      You misspelled 2024. I bet it's not the first thing you've gotten wrong about Trump this year.

    3. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, is the TPP a good thing that we're all in favor of now that Trump is against it? I must have missed the memo.

    4. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also, Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow - he may never become president.

      And you think Pence would, for some reason, sign the TPP?

    5. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wrote all that, but it's very clear that you have no idea what's actually in the TPP agreement, or that trade deals that are negotiated in secret are suspect, or that such extreme-globalization arrangements have been eroding the rights of individuals and enriching no one besides the economic elites for 3 decades.

      If you're perfectly happy to let politicians and corporations hash out deals without any public visibility, that's your issue, but spreading your ignorant b.s. to others is unacceptable.

    6. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by mutantSushi · · Score: 3, Informative

      It only has to be ratified by six countries... that comprise at least 85% of GDP of the signatories The US alone is roughly 65% of the combined GDP by my calculations, and thus necessary for TPP. That is written into the terms of the agreement, and can't be changed without creating a new agreement. Obviously there are other trade agreements out there, and other countries can join them without US.

    7. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trump is going to have similar problems to what Obama faced with not being able to get things passed, many of his promises go against not just what the democrats want but also what the republicans are willing to accept, Trump has been elected president not dictator and unless that changes then a huge amount of disappointment and disillusionment in his first term is almost certain and it is going to be very tough to get over those broken promises and persuade those people that normally don't vote to come out and support him again.

    8. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by mutantSushi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not ratifying TPP means US will "not reap the benefits of it". OK, those being... 0.4% GDP growth by 2030 according to World Bank? That just is not grounds for "absolutely must have this agreement". And what of this "disruption" of trade with Asia? Not passing TPP does not disrupt anything. It means simply the status quo continues. TPP is the disruption to status quo relation of law and society. Yeah, Trump is an idiot and you hate him. Doesn't really have much bearing on TPP.

    9. Re: 12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow - he may never become president.

      Raymorris, last seen handing a cigar to president-elect Trump, has not been heard from again.

    10. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Twelve countries are party to TPP. It only has to be ratified by six in order to become binding (on those six). As currently written, the US and Japan have to be among the six, but certainly the other 11, or some of them, could decide to put it into effect among themselves. TPP can exist without the US, if Japan is included. Heck, the US isn't party to a precursor of TPP, the Transpacific Economic Partnership Agreement.

      Also, Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow - he may never become president. After all these years of negotiations, there's no reason for Japan to just drop it, based only on something someone said during a campaign; people say all kinds of things during campaigns. The US could even ratify TPP in 2020, after Trump leaves office. (At least I don't know if any time limit offhand.)

      I very much fear that Trump will become president and that fact lite and fact free candidates will become the norm. Simply put, it worked, and they can tune it further next time.

      All that being said nobody and no government should avoid doing what it believes is right just because the US or someone else refuses to do it. That is like saying China pollutes so we should pollute just as much. Now I'm less than certain that I really like the TPP, but perhaps it could be improved into a workable treaty. Things like copyright extensions double a normal persons lifespan are just crazy.

      I think it is safe to assume that it is not safe to assume what Trump will do, though you can predict fairly well what republicans will do. I'm throwing out a wild guess that he will go along with most of what they want, provided it either benefits him or his company, or just doesn't matter to him. Something that looks a lot like the TPP is still possible, though they will have to change one or two things. Perhaps they can call it TPP2 and add a few nonsense clauses about making america great again? I'm also guessing he is going to take a serious stab at seeing what the power of the presidency can do for him. Do note he has recently said he is turning down billions in deals. Now that is likely a lie like everything else, but it does yield a picture of what he is thinking about, and it is not the syrian refugee crisis.

      Who knows, he may even be worth over ten billion when done. Of course it is also possible that they will so overreach that the democrats will get the house back and start a long overdue investigation leading to impeachment, but I suspect that is just wishful thinking on my part.

      My best guess is taxes will be cut. The economy will form a bubble of sorts. Debt will skyrocket the rest of the way, possibly leading to the first default by the United States, which Trump will try and fail to negotiate terms for. That will send our credit rating to hell, increasing our interest rates vastly, and quickly making the debt essentially impossible to pay off. The real question is when the artificial bubble created pops. If it happens after say Trump's replacement comes in, well they can blame them and repeat the whole process, though it may be difficult to fully transfer all the blame in that case. If the bubble happens before he leaves, they can probably say Trump was never a republican, then blame him, and try to repeat the whole process. It is nice that reality is flexible like that...

      I'm going to guess the fact that Trump lied a lot to get elected will never matter, at least to most of those that elected him. If they were easily convinced by lies once, well there is plenty of space on the greatest hits album. I'm sure they can make up some crap about how everything that went wrong is somehow the responsibility of Obama, congressional democrats, the EPA, the liberal media, the CIA, some old union guy, or some other convenient scapegoat. Perhaps we can blame Canada. We haven't tried that lately.

    11. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      TPP is not a trade deal per se - the trade barriers are already low. It's a geopolitical deal to make sure the Pacific Rim countries are not dominated by China in future. TPP does have some nice areas - it requires Pacific countries to establish minimum wage laws, pollution controls and workplace safety regulations in line with other countries.

      Unfortunately, copyright lobby is also using as a Trojan horse to smuggle in pro-copyright laws.

      And you can bet that China is not sleeping - they are promoting their One-Belt-One-Road initiative to make a China-dominated trade pact.

    12. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still want to see the great wall of america (the working mans moon shot) and hilary safely in prison, next to chelsea. Just to show it can be done.

      I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out.

    13. Re:12 countries since 2008, not only USA today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the argument that Obama was making, if we don't work out trade deals in the Asia-Pacific region, China will own it.

      I'm not for TPP as written, not at all, but we do need to work with other countries for our sake as well as theirs.

      Trump just says stuff, he hasn't read the Constitution much less the TPP, he said what people wanted to hear. Read any of his books and he freely admits to being a con man.

      I mean, dealmaker.

  15. 50 to 70 years after the death of the author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well we better get on it then :P

  16. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have savings, you could move to the southern hemisphere now and live like a king in some places for <$10,000 a year. Low cost of living, nice climate, good looking women, great seafood. In a few years when the US has become Russia's Zapadnaya Oblast, this will probably be a common move for anyone who still has money.

  17. Re:~~~ China Hoverboard ~~~ by TroII · · Score: 2

    You're a year late, hoverboards are old and busted. Do you have any Tickle Me Elmos?

  18. Re:~~~ China Hoverboard ~~~ by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Hoverboard fires, cell phone fires... I think I see a pattern.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  19. Re:As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite c by dbIII · · Score: 2

    I'm glad the US is pulling out of TPP

    From this news it looks very much that it is not.
    Enjoy the exciting times of the uncertainty of living under the rule of someone who thinks autocracy is a good idea and has few to oppose him. A few months ago The Word of Trump was no TPP, while now it looks like The Word of Trump as uttered to Abe is that there will be a TPP. House and Senate will not stop him and the Supreme Court will be stacked with enough new members to ensure Trump gets his way.

  20. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with giving Japan nukes if it helps me get to retirement faster. Then I'll move to the Southern Hemisphere.

    I suggest reading "On The Beach" about a ship captain retiring to the Southern Hemisphere due to nukes.
    Ava Gardner described Melbourne as "the perfect place to make a film about the end of the world."

  21. Of course he will sign the TPP by quax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While he is cosing up to Russia, the latest insults towards China indicate that the latter will be designated as the new hostile nation #1, and the TPP is all about containing and insulating China.

    1. Re:Of course he will sign the TPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It may backfire very badly on the US given how much the US is in debt to China combined with Russia being very friendly with China. Trump appears to be burning a dozen bridges and replacing them with a rickety rope bridge that he hopes won't rott and break while he is standing on it.

    2. Re:Of course he will sign the TPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've always been at war with Eastasia, and friends with Eurasia.

    3. Re:Of course he will sign the TPP by quax · · Score: 1

      There has been one consistent theme throughout his life: Trump is in it for Trump.

      He has no intention to be there when things collapse. This is a run and grab operation. He won't hesitate to set the world on fire if it'll make him a pretty penny.

    4. Re:Of course he will sign the TPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, China owns less than 10% of the US debt. China and Russia are not as friendly as you think, either. It's a relationship of necessity. Russia grudgingly needs China to buy oil and gas. China grudgingly wants someone other than EU and US to sell things to.

  22. Well... by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only reason I think that Japan would have done it, is if they think that the current coup to put Hillary in power by flooding the news with propaganda about "Russian hacking" will definitely succeed, which will result in Hillary signing the TTP into law. I would rather not actually see this happen, considering how horrible the law actually is (Personally I don't like the idea of it killing the Dojinshi industry, not to mention the US jobs and jobs of whatever other modern country joins in). This was more likely a leak than a hack, considering the suspicious death of Seth Rich.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
    1. Re:Well... by locater16 · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget, the mole people really want that copyright extension to extend to everywhere. Their media empire parts such as Disney love to have permanent control, hell since Stan Lee and George Lucas are still alive they've got at least 70+ years on a lot of Marvel and all of Star Wars. I would of course not like to see the TPP be brought into law. Killing off Dojinshi industry will be bad for us lizard people, our base of operations is shrinking ever more to the mole people, and our last ditch effort with Trump is turning sour. I mean seriously, never trust an owl jew like Trump, will stab you in the back first chance they get!

    2. Re:Well... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only person who has said they "do not believe" the intelligence is Trump himself.

      And the FBI. Which reported a very different set of conclusions.

      Regardless, what is it you think happened? Voting machines got hacked or something? What happened was some leaked email. The only reason that had any impact on the election was because it showed how corrupt the Clinton machine and the DNC are. That might have been the last straw for some people not interested in voting for Hillary anyway, but it didn't cause the complete blow-out of all of those state legislative seats, the governorships, both houses of congress, etc. The Russians didn't have any meaningful impact at all. Hillary was a terrible candidate who lied at every turn and heaped scorn on the people she said she wanted to lead. And people across the country were sick of it. California and NY were taken for granted by Clinton, and those states did indeed step up and do their obedient liberal duty. But lots of other liberal-centric places refused to take the Hillary bait, and defected or stayed home. If you think that was about the Russians, you're delusional. Yes, the CIA's right - the Russians definitely had a preference for who they wanted to see win. Just like the British government did. And the Italians. And China. And the government of Canada. So what?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why did the Russian hackers who compromised the DNC and the RNC, only release the emails of the DNC?

      If they were trying to help us out, they should have released both; not just the opponent of the one they wanted to win.

      Manipulation of our politics by foreign governments is what America does to other governments, and I think that's equally horrendous.

      Captcha: ripoff

    4. Re:Well... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      The only reason I think that Japan would have done it, is if they think that the current coup to put Hillary in power by flooding the news with propaganda about "Russian hacking" will definitely succeed, which will result in Hillary signing the TTP into law. I would rather not actually see this happen, considering how horrible the law actually is (Personally I don't like the idea of it killing the Dojinshi industry, not to mention the US jobs and jobs of whatever other modern country joins in). This was more likely a leak than a hack, considering the suspicious death of Seth Rich.

      Here, Mr. Bannon, have a tinfoil hat ... looks like you need one.

    5. Re:Well... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      Hmm, the way I remember it, Hillary was against TPP too. In fact, I don't see much difference between the two of them anymore.

    6. Re:Well... by PGC · · Score: 1

      So, which russian hackers released emails?

      So far, the only party who has definitely released emails was the FBI.
      Other than that everything is speculation.
      Regarding the released DNC emails: I'd put my money on the DNC member who got robbed with a bullet to the back of his head.
      Regarding Podesta emails: that was an easy phishing trick that could have been pulled by any competent 'hacker' .

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    7. Re:Well... by PGC · · Score: 1

      Then your memory is failing you.

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the RNC were the hackers. They did not want to air their dirty laundry.

    9. Re:Well... by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      If they were trying to help us out, they should have released both; not just the opponent of the one they wanted to win.

      What makes you think that there were leaks of anyone else's email, besides the DNC stuff? Assange says the leaks were internal, not Russian hackers. Do you have better information than he does?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Well... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Because the RNC were the hackers.

      So what information do you have that the CIA, the FBI, and wikileaks itself (who received the information) don't have? Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did the Russian hackers who compromised the DNC and the RNC, only release the emails of the DNC?

      You're going to have to back up nearly every word in that sentence with a citation.

    12. Re:Well... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      She was for it... then against it.

      If Trump can be given a pass on what he was for, and then against, then why is Hillary still judged by this different standard?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Well... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You mean, the guy who was shot, and then lived for an hour, indicating that if it was a hit, it was a hit by the worst hit men ever?

      Or maybe the poor bastard was simply the victim of a robbery gone wrong.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TPP's signatories are almost all "modern countries". (Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Chile, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, Japan, US.) Of these, only Vietnam is by any stretch of the imagination "poor", and it is already growing fast.

    15. Re:Well... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Clinton was for it when she was involved in the negotiations. When the final product came out, which was likely considerably different, she was against it. Trump's being suspected of telling his supporters he was against it and then coming out in favor, when the situation hasn't changed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. Re:As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite c by Desler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You actually believed Trump when he said that? How dumb are you?

  24. Re:~~~ China Hoverboard ~~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hehuhehuh oh boy oh boy!

  25. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    Incidentally, this is also part of why the Obama administration, and others before it, wanted a trade agreement - because we want to sell more agricultural products to Japan. The copyright stuff was shoehorned in there by the **AA, and it was an unfortunate side effect, not the initial intent.

  26. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    Yeah, sadly corruption by the big money permeates the US political system, including the establishment of both parties. And the **AA our good friends just use the system.

  27. Get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    There's your problem right there. Actually believing anything that comes out of Trump's mouth. He's broken numerous campaign promises and he's not even in office yet.

    Yeah. We totally should have elected the warm, charismatic leader that has our best interests at heart.

    Hillary lost. Get over it.

    1. Re:Get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That Donald Trump won the US presidential election doesn't somehow change any of those things.

    2. Re:Get over it. by dehachel12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Hillary lost
      I am over that. But I am still not over Bernie losing.

    3. Re:Get over it. by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: "Stop pointing out that i got conned by a liar! Waaaaaaaah!"

    4. Re:Get over it. by ckatko · · Score: 0

      You and every other liberal.

  28. Trump is not an "anointed heir" by Nova+Express · · Score: 0

    Donald Trump is not "anointed heir to the U.S. presidency," he's the President-elect of the United State of America. He did not inherit the office.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Trump is not an "anointed heir" by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      It's a figurative expression. I know people round here can be very literal minded but surely as a writer you know better.

    2. Re:Trump is not an "anointed heir" by tepples · · Score: 1

      Mr. Trump is the presumptive President-elect. He isn't officially the President-elect until December 19. If Secretary Clinton can strike a deal with 12 percent of Mr. Trump's electors to switch to John Kasich, we won't even have #1TermDonald.

    3. Re:Trump is not an "anointed heir" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the last time we had an electoral issue liek this would create 9/11 happened, right?

      Even if the system was ut in to work this way.. I seriously doubt that you would enjoy the results.

    4. Re:Trump is not an "anointed heir" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct! John Kasich is, in fact, pro- TPP

  29. Quod Erat Demonstrandum by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only reason I think that Japan would have done it, is if they think that the current coup to put Hillary in power by flooding the news with propaganda about "Russian hacking" will definitely succeed, which will result in Hillary signing the TTP into law. I would rather not actually see this happen, considering how horrible the law actually is (Personally I don't like the idea of it killing the Dojinshi industry, not to mention the US jobs and jobs of whatever other modern country joins in). This was more likely a leak than a hack, considering the suspicious death of Seth Rich.

    Trump supporters don't drink the kool-aid - they snort the powder.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  30. Powerful, But Are They In Charge of Gundam? by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    The Japanese Agricultural Association (JA) is a very powerfull association that distorts vast amounts of money from the Japanese farmers like Italian mobsters. Money that the government wants to have but it did not have any means to take on the JA.

    Of course not, because the goverment Agricultural Ministry is not in charge of Gundam. We might have finally found out who is, though.

    1. Re:Powerful, But Are They In Charge of Gundam? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sunrise has always been in charge of Gundam.

  31. Re:~~~ China Hoverboard ~~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cabbage Patch Kids, grown from real cabbage patches, the kind we have to supplement our meager rations while living through the second great depression.

  32. Whine when they break by dbIII · · Score: 2

    OVAL OFFICE BEFORE WHINING ABOUT HIM BREAKING HIS PROMISES

    He's already breaking some with his appointments. Why give him a free pass when cries for Hillary to be lock locked up happened any time Goldman Sachs connections were mentioned?

  33. Whatever happens... by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Funny

    It must be the lefties fault.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Whatever happens... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's enough hate to go around for all.

  34. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you! It is always nice when someone answers the headline question.

  35. Amazing by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    It's amazing the things you can accomplish when you don't have mental illness.

  36. About the long game. by Ke7dbx · · Score: 1

    I think they hope that the US will eventually pass it. There is no time limit as far as I know for ratification on this treaty. So if it takes 10 years to happen then it takes 10 year in their eyes. About playing the long game not the short game. Just like if Congress wanted to they could ratify the Kyoto agreement today even tho it has been over 15 years from the time it came out.

  37. Monday 19th December by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what Abe knows. Its when the Clinton Internal Agncy will declare meddling official with fake evidence and shut down Donald Trump. America is a terrorist nation.

  38. Maybe this has zero to do with anything US related by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all politics, this is possibly entirely about local politics in Japan, and some sort of distraction for Japan ahead of other bad news, or just something to pull out later as an accomplishment.

    What Japan does often has nothing to do with the US, so the thought that there must be some US-centric reason for Japan's actions might be a bit over the top.

  39. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except, ratifying the TPP will not address any national issue, unless it comes into effect, and it will not come into effect if the U.S. does not ratify.

    If the U.S. backs down, the "agricultural goods and meat coming freely into the country without having all kinds of associations like JA being able to control" thing will not happen, and no damage to JA.

    So, your point is completely off.

  40. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Kagetsuki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm guessing you live in Japan like me, so just wanted to point out for anyone interested that this is pretty much dead on. I would like to point out that it's neglecting the immensely positive push it got from car and electronics companies. If the TPP passed as-is Japanese cars and electronics could easily take over the US market place and would likely decimate the US domestic market. Really it would have been great for Japan, which is why I personally wanted it to pass, but the honest truth is as Trump points out it was an abysmal deal for the US. Personally I hope they just renegotiate it.

  41. "After the death of the author" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these ",,, years after the death of the author" laws should also require the record label execs to deliver the money to the author personally.

    "What are you doing with that cyanide pill?"
    "I'm going over to the other side to pay Prince[1] for our use of his copyrighted works".

    [1] or any other dead musician, book author, etc.

  42. That would be "the US and Japan" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    As I said, "as currently written, the US and Japan have to be among the six." A new agreement *could* consist of one sentence: "strike the 85% requirement".

  43. About the long game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no time http://www.w3gist.com/

  44. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by wish+bot · · Score: 1

    Ava Gardner described Melbourne as "the perfect place to make a film about the end of the world."

    Because it tops the world's most liveable cities lists, so the rest of the world may as well not exist?

    Sort of like a 'restaurant at the end of the universe'?

    --
    lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
  45. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last time something called "JA" threatened Japan, I was watching evangelion.

  46. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    How many Japanese products are made in China and just branded. Really the only reason they signed off is pure empty politics. No country with an even slightly honest government will sign off sovereignty to a secret corporate court. So with the US out, Japan can try to dominate weak partners because Australia and New Zealand are out. There is already agreement the deal will not be renegotiated so the Japanese government is just attempting to keep the existing one alive. It is pretty obvious is being a sock puppet to many Machiavellian schemes to force political stances upon the new government, including scams 'er' schemes designed to collapse, forcing more conflict in various regions, scandalous dumping of arms and munitions into conflict zones, desperate attempts to minimise the outcomes of pizzagate et al.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  47. Wanna bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll wager that TPP is ratified by the United States during Trump's administration. Nine out of ten Americans don't know what TPP stands for, don't understand its impact on American business, and are unaware of Trump's promise to kill it.

    $100. Anyone want to bet against me?

  48. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but the honest truth is as Trump points out it was an abysmal deal for the US

    The negative impact on the US auto industry really misses the point, protectionism is almost always to the detriment of the country as a whole. Under the deal the Japanese agricultural industry suffers, but all Japanese people get cheaper food. It's a net benefit to Japan, even though it has a negative impact on that specific industry. At the same time the US agricultural industry gains from this.

    Likewise: under the deal the US auto industry suffers, but all Americans get cheaper cars. Since almost all Americans drive, it's a net benefit to the US. And, at the same time, the Japanese auto industry gains from this. Exactly the same situation as above.

    Third thing: the copyright stuff is being handled in the opposite way - favor the industry over the whole population. This is why people protest it, but it's easy to see why the politicians do it this way. The loss to industry is easy to quantify, even if they do give ridiculously inflated numbers, but the monetary benefit of shorter copyright terms is very hard to measure. You're trying to estimate the value of all of the works which could exist but don't, thanks to copyright. So politicians favor the safer option, ignoring all of the non-monetary value of the potential works that they're stifling, and go with copyright protectionism.

  49. TTP must be opposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It opens the door to a flood of asian immigration into the US. We can do without that, thanks.

  50. Best deal they are going to get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is they want it, now that they realize, after January they are not getting anything better that we are in.

  51. Wouldn't count on 2020 by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Also, Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow - he may never become president. After all these years of negotiations, there's no reason for Japan to just drop it, based only on something someone said during a campaign; people say all kinds of things during campaigns. The US could even ratify TPP in 2020, after Trump leaves office. (At least I don't know if any time limit offhand.)

    I know that a lot of people like to think that Trump will only be a one term president, but the odds are huge - or "yuge" as Trump says - that he'll serve two terms. Why?
    1) Since 1900 most sitting presidents have won re-election to a 2nd term. You can roughly categorize the losers as being beaten during periods of great economic malaise. Trump and the Republicans are going to push through a lot of tax cuts that may be long term disasters but in the short term the economy should grow here.
    2) Since Eisenhower was president, the US has alternated 8 years of Republican presidents with 8 years of Democratic presidents with the only exception being George H.W. Bush's 1998 election win that pushed the Republican presidency to 12 years in a row. This was followed by 8 years of a Democratic president and a return to the alternating cycle.
    3) Trump seems to be in pretty good health.
    4) Like it or not, this election showed that the Democrats are a minority party in this country and the odds are just going to be stacked against them for a long time to come. Rural America is solidly Republican. I just don't know if the Democrats will ever be able to take control of the House of Representatives again. Nancy Pelosi could live to be 100 and die being the last Democratic Speaker of the House. On top of that, her re-election as minority leader shows that the Democrats lack the new ideas and original thinking they are going to need if they ever want to control the House again.

    1. Re:Wouldn't count on 2020 by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Point 2: you seem to have forgotten about Jimmy Carter's four year term nestled between Nixon/Ford and Reagan. Also, your point 4 is erroneous. Trump polled fewer votes than Clinton.

      The people who think Trump is a one-term president are looking at

      1. He doesn't know how to run a political entity - he's probably going to screw it up

      2. He has already started reneging on his promises - people predict that there will be a backlash from the supporters he is betraying

      3. He'll probably lose interest before the end of the first term

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  52. TPP, to quote Monte Python... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    ... is not dead yet. Trump is not sworn in, there are plenty of D's and R's still supporting this legislation, and Obama would sign it if it came to his desk. It's not dead until it's actually dead in Congress for this lame duck session. And then who knows? Trump could change his mind.

    Thanks for electing us an inconsistent buffoon R's. Because you don't actually know what he's going to do.

    --
    That is all.
  53. Re: Answer: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ???

    China is not stupid. They won't escalate unnecessary war with say, japan. Expect more Crimeas. Hong Kong and taiwan yes. Smaller countries on their border. If they attack Japan they know the US will step in. Singapore will ally with China in a heartbeat. It's already been declared. Singapore wouldn't be assimilated unless the rest of se Asia already was.

  54. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's really disappointing that the EFF doesn't mention any of this. On the assumption that they cannot possibly be that stupid, it means that rather than actually representing regular netizens and providing them with the information they need to make sense of their world and effect change, they are aiming to govern them, trying to keep them in line with propaganda.
    Yes, the TPP is a terrible thing for most of the planet. Depending on your priorities, it might even be terrible for Japan. But hiding the motivations and machinations behind it isn't going to help us.

  55. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ava Gardner described Melbourne as "the perfect place to make a film about the end of the world."

    Because it tops the world's most liveable cities lists, so the rest of the world may as well not exist?

    Sort of like a 'restaurant at the end of the universe'?

    "When you're tired of Ursa Minor Beta you're tired of life."

  56. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhhh......except for Australia and New Zealand. They occupy a higher ring on the ladder than you do. Healthier, wealthier, live longer, better educated etc etc. They might not take you unless you can demonstrate you qualify for skilled migration. They don't just take any old peasant fleeing from their violence ridden hell hole you know. You'll have to prove your case.
    Having said that though, if you're from the USA you're at least ahead of the other developing economies like Brazil, Russia and Indonesia. You probably won't desperately try to get their equivalent of a green card so you'd be classed as relatively low risk.

  57. Re: It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans would also get *better* cars, not like the local primitive shit boxes that appear to be the only cars Americans are capable of producing.

  58. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It was in the 1959 when she said that. It sounds very funny now that Melbourne has changed so much.
    Think of the deep south of the USA in the 1950s and double it.

  59. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gyna has a huuuge lead over us on trade. Huuuge. Huuuuger than my small hands. Gyna ... huuuge. Gyna!!!

  60. Part of Abe's Agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TPP was part of Abe's agenda. Maybe lack of understanding reality, Abe met with Trump right after the election and supposedly told Trump to join TPP; even though everyone in the US knows neither Clinton nor Trump supports TPP. Ratifying TPP is in-line with the same level of ignorance in Japan on what's really going on in the US.

  61. Trump is unusual. Also "it's the economy, stupid" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's a good point, sitting presidents are most often re-elected. Also, presidents are normally politicians - they have years of experience in other political offices before becoming president. Presidents normally have strong support from their party leadership. Presidents are normally diplomatic, they don't say grossly inflammatory things on a weekly basis. Trump is not typical. I'd be very wary of predicting anything about Trump based on previous presidents.

    On the other hand, presidents are so arrogant that they think a) they should be president and b) most people will agree that they should be president. Most presidents also value loyalty very, very highly. Trump's personality is quite typical of a president.

  62. Re:Answer: China by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    China may be rapidly militarizing, but even at current rates it is decades away from being able to project force with the ability of the US and even some of the US's allies. China has exactly one aircraft carrier actually in the water at this point.

    And while I think Trump is a farcical moron, all he's really doing with this latest saber rattling is making open that which has been US policy for decades. Yes, the US won't acknowledge the Taiwanese government, even as arms it to the teeth and makes it clear that any attempt by China to seize Taiwan would lead to retaliation. And really, with China's military as it is, it's dubious it could even take Taiwan, which is one of the most fortified chunks of rock on the planet.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  63. Truth? by woboyle · · Score: 1

    Drumph has never, in his life, told the truth! I believe he is lying also about shutting down TPP. It is in the interests of his commercial partners such as Monsanto, Bayer, Big Pharma, et al. Drain the swamp? Hell, he is throwing all of us into the end of the swamp with the quick sand and alligators!

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  64. Re: It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associati by imgod2u · · Score: 1

    Alternatively, American car companies would no longer be complacent and actually innovate to produce competitive cars.

    I thought the Republicans were supposed to represent free markets. Yet because the TPP got proposed under Obama they're foaming at the teeth about it.

  65. Re: Answer: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Japan fell, the US was in the process of implementing martial law and couldn't spare the military force to honor its protectorate. That and hubris were also the reasons that the Battle of Anchorage was a complete debacle. In my worldline, that was under Clinton. Unfortunately this will also happen here even though you elected Trump. There is no more "UNLESS."

  66. Hilarity of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not right-wing. I'm not even white.

    Replying just so I can blockquote that and enjoy re-reading it a few times.

  67. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Than the Japanese politicians sold them out, considering the US massive subsidies on corn, soybean, and our bloated argo-cartel. I guess ConAgra wen to war with the JA and won is the result.

  68. I used to care. Stock market cured me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to care who was president. Stock market cured me.

    If it keeps going up at 5+% per month Trump can be president for life.

  69. More objectively, a promoter, and deal maker by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Trump just says stuff, he hasn't read the Constitution much less the TPP, he said what people wanted to hear.

    Absolutely.

    > Read any of his books and he freely admits to being a con man.
    > I mean, dealmaker.

    Many years ago, before he was involved in politics at all, I read some of his books. He's a) a promoter, someone who gets press coverage, and b) a deal-maker. He's not a Constitutional scholar, though it seems even a professor of Constitutional law turned president is happy to disregard the Constitution.

    In one deal, the owners of the Empire State building gave him 50% ownership. His cost to buy in? $0. If he was made half-owner, he'd find ways to make it more profitable; that was his "investment". That's a pretty darn good deal. He did turn it profitable too. In another deal, he got the other party to agree to pay the full cost of building a hotel and casino, they agreed to operate it, and he got half the money. He's obnoxious (because that gets publicity), and he's damn good at negotiating some incredible deals.

    On TPP, he's shown that the US is ready to walk away, that we don't feel we *need* this deal. Other countries who want the deal are now in the position of thinking about what, if anything, they can offer to sweeten the deal for the US. For Obama, having TPP fall through would be (was) a failure, once he committed to the deal politically it was hard to walk away, so his negotiating position wasn't as strong for the last few years.

  70. Re:As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TPP has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. That would break the Berne Convention, a much, much larger treaty that's been in law for over 40 years.

    And it's not gonna happen, because the world's biggest publishers - i.e. the people who profit most from copyright - are American. The longer copyrights last, the richer America gets. Of course you may not see any of that money, but that's because you weren't smart enough to get into the right business. Your fellow Americans are doing very nicely thank you.

    Captcha: bitter.

  71. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Likewise: under the deal the US auto industry suffers, but all Americans get cheaper cars.

    When you're out of work, you can't afford even a cheap car.
    We've made enough of those deals along the lines of "sacrifice jobs, but cheaper goods," that the jobs losses have piled up.

  72. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you will have nothing like Melbourne in the 50's and 60's

    good job!

  73. Re: As a fan of public domain and foe of infinite by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The white Australia policy was keeping even most of the Jews out (not white enough apparently) plus anyone black was hated even more than in the US deep south. The Polish, Italian and Greek migrants didn't have it so hard but were getting spat on. My aunt spent a bit of time there in the 1950s (and again later) working as a Nun in Fitzroy trying to smooth things over.
    It is a very different city today.
    However I threw in the Ava Gardner quote because it was slightly related but funny and not to make any sort of point - it says more about her than Melbourne anyway.

  74. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    You've sort of missed some of the reality of the situation but it would be intensely difficult for me to elegantly explain it all. Essentially the factors here are:
    1. Japanese auto manufacturers are competing against not only US auto manufacturers in the US market, in the case of say Toyota we have Korean (Hyundai) and German (VW) competitors along with the domestics (~Ford). The issue here is that Hyundai produces lower quality cars at *much* lower prices and VW produces similar range cars at roughly equal prices - with the TPP Toyota could sell VW range cars at Hyundai prices.
    2. The opposite end of (1) is that US cars would flood the Japanese market - which has already been attempted in the past but the poor image of US cars and general national brand loyalty of the general Japanese market lead to total failure. Even if the Japanese market was flooded with US cars it is highly unlikely it would make any significant impact to domestic manufacturers and would not lead to a profit for US manufacturers.
    3. Agriculture in Japan is a very specific market: extremely high quality at almost any price. Already the highest quality beef, apples, etc. produced in the US don't even touch the US domestic market and are diverted to Japan (and now increasingly China). Don't believe me? Check the label on your apple juice: where is it produced? The apple juice in Japan is usually made with US apples. With lower import costs Japan would get more mid-to-high range food products for the US for a cheaper price.

  75. Re:Answer: China by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Most navies do not in fact have an aircraft carrier, and China's industrial base is very impressive. It wouldn't take China all that long to become the world's number 2 naval power.

    I have no confidence that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's a pretty big step, and China has legitimate reasons to invade (specifically, that both sides agree that Taiwan is a part of China, and they could crush the last of the rebel government).

    It's possible to do a lot of things diplomatically if you don't make a big deal about it. Selling weapons to Taiwan is one thing, having an official policy or asserting the right to sell weapons to Taiwan is another thing entirely.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  76. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by keithostertag · · Score: 1

    You seem to make the assumption that lower prices are the ultimate goal for the American public _at_whatever_the_real_cost. This, of course, is why we have willfully given control of our country to corporations, and I'd say it is obviously not a good thing in the long run. That Americans continue to make this deal strikes me as short-sighted and suicidal. What's good for General Warbucks is _not_ good for the USA, not in the long run.

  77. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't seem to have contradicted me here. "with the TPP Toyota could sell VW range cars at Hyundai prices" - this is the desired outcome, both for the Japanese auto industry and for the great majority of Americans who don't work in the auto industry.

    For point #2: yes, the US auto industry would probably not do very well.

    For point #3: yes this arrangement works the same way for agriculture, just in the opposite direction. Japanese people get cheaper food - it benefits everyone in Japan who doesn't work in agriculture.

    Maybe you're saying that American agriculture would be making less, since most of our premium produce is already going to Japan? That doesn't follow. If they're already consuming all of the available supply, then opening up the market wouldn't change anything. Either they're not buying it all and would buy more (good for American agriculture) or they are buying it all but are also interested in produce which is slightly below premium (also good for American agriculture).

    I don't know that much about the current state of Japanese food imports, but I do know that Japan prohibits the sale of foreign rice. This was a big deal at one time and American rice growers petitioned the WTO to force Japan to buy some of what they were selling. Japan sidestepped this by buying the rice, on a yearly basis, but they feed it to livestock rather than allowing Japanese people to buy it. In other words, they could be buying more American rice and Japanese people could be paying less for it.
     

  78. Re:It's about Crushing the Agricultural Associatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am making no assumptions about the American public. At least not here. I'm stating only that protectionism generally works to detriment of the whole of the country, in order to benefit a small portion. This results in a net financial loss to the country.

    I find it strange that you would turn my statement on its head though - when I talk about the small portion who benefit, I'm talking about those same corporations that you are. Protectionism takes money from the whole of the populace, through the inflated cost of goods, and gives it to those companies who control that industry.

    The "cheap crap" phenomenon doesn't have the kind of impact on political influence that you seem to be suggesting. If anything it's helped to disperse that influence away from a few companies and on to a larger number. Not to the people of course, we can't have that, but it's a little more spread out now than it was.

         

  79. The plot thickens by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Yesterday Japan passed a law to make casinos legal in their territory.
    Coincidence?
    Very unlikely.
    Trump is working for Trump and not America.