Trump Was Right About TPP Benefiting China

While Trump’s bluster certainly could be mistaken for ignorance about TPP, in this case he’s right: China can get their goods to the U.S. and other countries through the back door, in a number of ways, and take advantage of TPP without being part of the agreement. Our trade deficit with China, which for the first 9 months of the year stood at $273 billion, would likely not appreciably change after the agreement, despite the additional trading partners.


theintercept.com...

Rand Paul said “we might want to point out that China is not part of this deal.” But Trump never suggested that China was part of the TPP, only that the country would “come in, as they always do, through the back door” of the agreement. And he was right.

a reply to: wasaka


Except the quote in the article is not the quote from the video

In the video trump clearly links China into the language of the TPP, which there is absolutely none of

Nice spin job trying to clean up is mess though

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: wasaka


Except the quote in the article is not the quote from the video

In the video trump clearly links China into the language of the TPP, which there is absolutely none of

Nice spin job trying to clean up is mess though

Secrecy often benefits those with something to hide, and the TPP has not exactly been written in the most open and public of ways, has it?

I would say the way this deal has been brokered, leaves plenty of room 'for linking China to the language of it'.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So you want to argue semantics even though the spirit of his comment is right?

the odd part is why is rand paul, who is supposedly anti establishment like ron paul, going to try to help the argument to support TPP at all, even to argue semantics. Yeah thanks Rand for speaking out on that fact that China is not part of the agreement, if you know that why not mention some other facts that are in this secret agreement which are not very good for America. Why focus on the semantics of what Trump said. Is the fact that China will benefit? Yes? Then that is what we should focus on not semantics.