back to article Plump Trump dumps TPP trade pump

US President Donald Trump has made good on a campaign promise and signed an executive order backing the United States out of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. "We've been talking about this for a long time," he said at the signing in the Oval Office Monday morning, arguing that it was a "great thing …

  1. Les Matthew

    executive order

    Can anyone tell me what constraints there are on Executive Orders?

    1. DougS Silver badge

      Re: executive order

      Basically anything that is within the power of the executive branch alone, without congressional approval. Since the TPP had not been ratified by congress, it was still in negotiation and thus entirely under control of the executive branch, meaning a simple executive order can snuff it out. He can't do that for NAFTA, however.

      It will be interesting after all the whining republicans did about Obama abusing executive orders and going beyond the authority of the executive branch when Trump does the same thing. No doubt the republicans will remain silent and now the democrats will suddenly think it is a terrible thing after eight years of silence on the matter.

      Unfortunately the trend is that every president pushes the envelope on executive orders a bit further than the last, but I'm not really sure who would even have standing to sue and ask for the Supreme Court to review if a given executive order was within the president's powers.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: executive order

        "[...] but I'm not really sure who would even have standing to sue and ask for the Supreme Court to review if a given executive order was within the president's powers."

        With the vacant space on the Supreme Court now to be nominated by Trump - then it would be expected he'll pick someone who will give him free rein. Whether the choice would be confirmed will be another pointer as to how far the GOP will try to restrain him.

        Trump's other actions today to appease his conservative supporters over issues like women's rights do not herald a liberal choice for the Supreme Court vacancy.

        The USA is leading the way into a dark valley.

        1. MNGrrrl

          Re: executive order

          > The USA is leading the way into a dark valley.

          We never left. We've been supplying arms in basically every armed conflict in the past 40 years. Yeah, the Russians give a little, but we're the main supplier. And although we don't sell to Iran, or ISIS, or whatever, we sell to the people who do.

          But before you bad-mouth my country, just remember: The first country we invaded was our own. We have the highest rates of gun-related death. We lead the world in incarceration per capita. We have no national health care. Life does not mean much in this country, and while we talk a lot about freedom, it is paradoxical that most of our elected leaders at every level of government and every branch, slant heavily towards a single dominant religion. Yes, what ISIS does is bad. Yes, terrorism is wrong. But when they say they are fighting a religious war, they aren't exactly wrong: We may have religious freedom and tolerance on paper, but by policy and action we most certainly are not.

          And while we may occupy a morally and ethically questionable position, you have to remember that countries like the UK, Australia, most EU member countries, India, Israel, Turkey, etc., all remain silent to the crimes against humanity that this country regularly commits, both domestically and abroad.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: executive order

            MNGrrl had it almost right:

            > "But before you bad-mouth my country, let me do it first!"

            Hey, it's okay to criticize the US, really. You don't have to feign being a patriot first. That kind of cheap trick just makes intelligent people disregard what you say.

            1. Mark 85 Silver badge

              Re: executive order

              Part of the Constitution allows disagreement with our elected officials. So criticizing isn't a problem as long as it's rational and promotes discussion. Screaming, rioting, violence, etc. do not promote the free exchange of ideas.

              If it weren't permitted, I suspect most of us would be in the Gulag getting re-educated.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: executive order

              "My country, right or wrong" is not going to win you any friends these days, Big John.

            3. sabroni Silver badge
              WTF?

              Re: That kind of cheap trick just makes intelligent people disregard what you say.

              How do you know what intelligent people think?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: executive order

            Quote:

            And while we may occupy a morally and ethically questionable position, you have to remember that countries like the UK, Australia, most EU member countries, India, Israel, Turkey, etc., all remain silent to the crimes against humanity that this country regularly commits, both domestically and abroad.

            We used to complain but it made no difference.

            Besides, if a small country complained about the USA too much in the past there was always the possibility that the US could simply invade that country and put a puppet in charge.

            As the USA is not a signatory to the UN Convention (AFAIK) on Human Rights, any complaints would just fall on deaf ears.

            Then there is this to consider...

            The US M.O. is normally to go in with all guns blazing and to hell with the rest of the world.

            Even the police are in on the act.

            does it really take 96 bullets to kill a suspect? One should do the trick...

            1. rh587 Bronze badge

              Re: executive order

              As the USA is not a signatory to the UN Convention (AFAIK) on Human Rights,

              Or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - the USA holding the unique position of being the only UN Member not to sign it.

              Even China, Iran, Saudi and Russia have signed it (granted some with certain reservations or stipulations).

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: executive order

                It appears from google that the USA doesn't recognise the International Criminal Court either.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: executive order

              "And while we may occupy a morally and ethically questionable position, you have to remember that countries like the UK, Australia, most EU member countries, India, Israel, Turkey, etc., all remain silent to the crimes against humanity that this country regularly commits, both domestically and abroad."

              Sorry, but I don't remember history that way. I remember that all those countries have their own moral failings, some much worse than the US's. I also remember than the UN's members are mostly dictatorships of one kind or another, so take your high horse and shove that sucker right up your arse. It should fit easily.

        2. DougS Silver badge

          @AC - Trump nominating Supreme Court justice

          It is VERY unlikely Trump would consider executive power above all else when nominating a justice.

          He's said he wants to nominate justices who keep to the original intent of the Constitution - i.e. a typical conservative justice. They are IMHO less likely to support a president trying to extend the power of the executive. Presidents have for decades been going well beyond the powers specified for the executive in the Constitution, I wouldn't be shocked if someone was able to challenge it that the president (of either party) would be slapped back in a near-unanimous vote.

    2. BillG Silver badge
      Facepalm

      The Trans-Pacific Partnership

      The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement was never real. Obama signed an EO to move forward, but since all treaties need to be ratified by Congress both the Obama and Trump EOs don't mean much.

      The purpose of the treaty was to create an EU type organization for certain Pacific-bordered countries: Japan, USA, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru. China declined to participate.

      You have to remember that, except for Japan, countries do not sign trade agreements primarily because they want to import cheap stuff. In the end, they sign to increase their exports, while keeping that value higher than imports. Why Obama agreed to this stumped even his own party.

      The treaty pretty much guarantees that manufacturing jobs would go to countries with the lowest labor rate, since the treaty does not allow for any normalization of import/exports by tariffs. Yeah, the countries have to commit to certain minimum labor standards like not having work environments where laborers want to jump off buildings, but look how well that works in China.

      This was a golden chance for Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore, who pay their workers peanuts, to flood the TPP market with cheap goods.

      Even the U.S Democrats said the treaty would kill U.S. jobs. And since the combined population of all those countries are almost twice that of the EU, the TPP would eventually be a real economic danger to Europe.

      So good riddance, TPP.

      1. SundogUK

        Re: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

        What planet are you on that Singapore pays their workers peanuts?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some are also concerned that the biggest impact of withdrawing from the TPP will be to give China more opportunity to seize a larger proportion of world trade

    Maybe other countries will try to fill the gap. A good chance for a yuuuuge, vodka-oriented country with a shirtless, muscular, bear-rider head of state to get a nice piece of the pie?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "A good chance for a yuuuuge, vodka-oriented country with a shirtless, muscular, bear-rider head of state to get a nice piece of the pie?"

      Wonder where the crumbs from that might go?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Wonder where the crumbs from that might go?

        They'd tumble down his chest and land on wild, orange misogynist hair.....

  3. MNGrrrl

    Executive orders, a primer

    Basically, anything the executive branch has the power to do, can be implimented with an executive order. Executive orders continue with new Presidents, but the new President can cancel them at will.

    -

    TPP was never ratified by Congress, thus it is not a binding treaty. Obama's executive order basically pledged to impliment and follow TPP as policy. NAFTA, however, *was* ratified by Congress, and while Congress can back out of a treaty with a majority vote (and the President signing it into law), it should not usually be done lightly because it causes a loss of faith in other treaties that country signed. Basically, it is better to renegotiate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Executive orders, a primer

      Yes, TTP was a hollow shell, but not NAFTA. I feel Trump is talking a lot about NAFTA as one of his misdirections, not really intending to attempt a kill. He may however force some public debate on the subject. That ought to be fun. Also it's been a very long time with no trade negotiations with our closest sizable neighbors, so perhaps it's time to start thinking about it?

    2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: Executive orders, a primer

      The other difference is TPP never being ratified meant it terms were never binding on the US. So any executive order pledging adherence to its terms is not much better than used toilet paper. NAFTA is a properly ratified treaty that will require negotiations to modify. Obama had a tendency to use executive orders as if they were binding and in many cases they are not. They can be undo by legislation, court orders, or by subsequent orders.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Executive orders, a primer

        "The other difference is TPP never being ratified meant it terms were never binding on the US. So any executive order pledging adherence to its terms is not much better than used toilet paper."

        What a pity that other countries don't decide the same thing about unratified agreements.... like the fast track extradition process.

        Whoever decided they're binding if only ONE country ratifies needs to go to those gulags we keep hearing about.

        1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          Re: Executive orders, a primer

          When a treaty becomes binding in other countries one will need to look at those countries' constitutions and laws. In the US, a treaty only becomes binding if it is ratified by the US Senate per the US Constitution. The Senate has rejected treaties before (Versailles Treaty for one).

  4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    Pretty much the maifesto of the billionaire ECO in the 1994 novel "Hardscape"

    Let's see how it works out for The D.

  5. Oengus Silver badge

    Good for the average man on the street.

    US corporations were almost universally in favor of the deal. When we explored it in detail, we concluded that most of the fears expressed were likely overblown and had stemmed from the secretive process used to draw up the text.

    I am skeptical of any agreement that is drawn up and "negotiated" under a veil of secrecy and that Mega Corporations are in favour of. If it is such a good deal for us why are they not being open?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good for the average man on the street.

      Funny how Obama and the large corporations always seemed to be on the same side.

      1. AMBxx Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Good for the average man on the street.

        It's the difference between improving the average income and improving the income of the average man.

        If you double the income of the richest, the average income increases regardless of its impact on those lower down.

        All other things being equal, free trade is good. However, you can't improve your own workers' conditions then send all the work overseas to areas with fewer rights.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Good for the average man on the street.

          "However, you can't improve your own workers' conditions then send all the work overseas to areas with fewer rights."

          My wife works for various organisations in those overseas countries (it's complicated).

          One of the more interesting things to bear in mind is that foreign investment (and contracts) in most of these developing nations comes with strings attached demanding that the contractors not use child labour, pay their employees well, have decent working conditions, guarantee education, etc etc.

          MOST. In particular: Virtually every foreign company except those from the USA - american outsourcing companies generally don't care about such things and as such, many developing countries won't let them operate inside their borders. Part of the "free trade" agreements was an attempt to batter that "barrier" down.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Good for the average man on the street.

      Nobody has ever negotiated anything "in the open". Period.

      From your terms of employment, to Donald Trump's campaign finances, to the TPP - everything that could possibly be called a "negotiation" has always been secret. Has to be. Sometimes someone will publish a tell-all account - but only after the fact, and even then you can bet it's polished up to be as self-serving as Trump's own resume.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Good for the average man on the street.

        "Nobody has ever negotiated anything "in the open". Period."

        Confidential/private negotitations are one thing and normal.

        On the other hand we have: Locking up all the paperwork, preventing those who are supposed to sign off on it from seeing it and when finally forced to do so, only allowing them eyes-only access (no notes allowed) under supervision of an armed guard along with legal gagging orders preventing them discussing what they'd seen

        TTP and TTIP both used the latter. Is that the new normal?

  6. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    I look forward to seeing the Trump line of Exclusive clothing bearing the Made in America label as opposed to the Made in China one they have now (including those "Make America Great Again" baseball caps the Trumpeters were buying in shoals during the Great Public Lying run up to the election).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Let them eat cake"

      No, that's cake. Yes, it often smells like that, but that's because bulls also eat cake. It didn't smell like that last time because of the plastic sheeting. Actually it's the biggest cake ever, over twice the size of any cake anywhere in the world. The label is not important. These are the alternative facts - don't believe the most dishonest media ever. Sad!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bah!

      In 1968 there was a similar "I'm Backing Britain" campaign launched by the UK government after devaluation of sterling.

      One feature was items like carrier bags and T-Shirts with a "Union Jack" motif and emblazoned with the slogan. Unfortunately it turned out that many of them were made in other countries like Hong Kong or Portugal.

      http://nostalgiacentral.com/pop-culture/fads/im-backing-britain-1968/

      1. Dr Scrum Master

        Re: Bah!

        One feature was items like carrier bags and T-Shirts with a "Union Jack" motif and emblazoned with the slogan. Unfortunately it turned out that many of them were made in other countries like Hong Kong or Portugal.

        But HK was at least British at the time.... and Portugal's our oldest ally.

        1. AMBxx Silver badge

          Portugal's our oldest ally.

          Yes, your enemy's enemy is generally a good friend.

          Let's not forget that in 1968 Portugal was still a fascist dictatorship.

          1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

            Re: Portugal's our oldest ally.

            Let's not forget that in 1968 Portugal was still a fascist dictatorship.

            During which time (if I remember correctly) our alliance was put on hold. We didn't want to be seen to be supporting a facist state just after having gone to war to defeat one..

  7. Corporate Earth

    TPPfft

    Probably working on a Trump-Pacific Partnership instead, one where he means well but everyone misquotes him, cries, screams and rage because of hurty feelings, then invade and pillage Singapore out of protest.

  8. Alan Brown Silver badge

    The last mercantilist president

    Was Herbert Hoover. It's worth looking up how badly his policies damaged the USA.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The last mercantilist president

      In our history lessons we were taught that the 19th century protectionist UK Corn Laws were instigated by landowners whose prices were being undercut by imports from North American prairies.

      The result was that poorer people in the UK found staples like bread almost unaffordable. This then fed through to a rise in wages and thus increased the cost of manufactured goods.

      The equivalent in Trumpusa has been reckoned to be that Walmart shelves will see a price hike to match the tariffs imposed on imported items.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: The last mercantilist president

        "The equivalent in Trumpusa has been reckoned to be that Walmart shelves will see a price hike to match the tariffs imposed on imported items."

        Which is exactly what happened when Hoover did it, and what happened when the same attempts were made (twice) in the 19th century.

        In all three cases, a depression followed shortly afterwards. Correlation is not causality but the increased prices for just about everything made things harder for everyone not on the top of the pile.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The last mercantilist president

      > "It's worth looking up how badly his policies damaged the USA."

      Yes, Hoover was assigned all the blame for the Great Depression by the Dems and FDR, but then FDR and his socialist policies (much like Obama's) caused that depression to drag out for many years, only relenting after people had had enough and voted in the Reps to Congress (again, eerily similar to recent history).

      Once the Reps got in and stopped FDR's meddling, the US economy finally started to improve, just in time to start rearming prior to WWII I might add. And again, they had to do this because FDR wasn't interested in a strong military, just like Obama, and both had allowed the military to rot under greatly reduced budgets.

      1. Trilkhai

        Re: The last mercantilist president

        Nope. The economy *improved* steadily during FDR's presidency, aside from a recession in 1937 that was directly linked to some of his policies being rolled back. Most economists feel that the New Deal either caused or accelerated the recovery, and that it would have fully succeeded if his policies had been more aggressive. If his policies had "prolonged" the depression as you claim, the pattern would have been precisely the opposite.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Turning_point_and_recovery

      2. Richard Plinston Silver badge

        Re: The last mercantilist president

        > just in time to start rearming prior to WWII I might add.

        Or, in America, 'just in time to start rearming while WWII went on for a couple of years, ...'.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: The last mercantilist president

      I doubt VERY seriously that Trump is truly a "mercantilist".

      His plans are simple: provide 'incentives' to keep what production is already inside the USA, as well as incentives to 'bring it back' (or expand within the U.S.).

      Typically this will be in the form of

      a) tax cuts

      b) de-regulation

      Although the threat of retaliatory import tariffs still exists, it is highly likely that this is the primary means by which Trump intends to 'make America great again'. However, it might be there as a 'stick' for when the carrot stops working. Incidentally, as I recall, such 'protectionist' means have already been written into things _LIKE_ NAFTA, and the WTO agreements.

      But yeah, those of calling Trump "President Snowflake" (aka members of the "need a clue-by-4" club) won't get it at all. They'll believe the stuff they hear on late night "comedy news", and on Face-blank or Tw[a,i]tter rants, instead.

  9. Drew 11

    Reasons for holding the front of a pad up while you write

    1. You're faking it

    2. You can't spel proper and don't want the media to unprove your alternative facts.

    3. To stop the guy in the row in front copying you're stuff while you're busy trying to get your tiny little hands on the naughty bits of girl beside you.

  10. Alistair Silver badge
    Coffee/keyboard

    HOLY CRAP!

    "That Trump has come good on one of his most persistent campaign promises is in stark contrast to a number of backtracks on other high-profile topics, such as getting Mexico to pay for a wall along the US border and a formal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of email while at the State Department."

    Kieren, whilst you and I have essentially agreed to disagree about the content and intent of the TPP, I see you continue with your practice of understatement.

    Stark Contrast my ass, I'm goddamn staggered!

    In four years at least Prez.Tweeter.Trump will have *one* campaign banner he can say he stuck to. Inasmuch as I absolutely expect the Tweeter to completely screw the US to the wall in the next year, I have to give him one hell of a high five for this move.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: HOLY CRAP!

      "I have to give him one hell of a high five for this move."

      Why? Whoever won, both said they'd withdraw from TTIP. It 's not as if Clinton and Trump were on opposite sides of that issue. That was a done deal, no matter the election result and probably the easiest promise to keep.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: HOLY CRAP!

      The guy has had one weekend in office and already there are clowns trying to paint him as a big failure for not keeping all his promises during that very weekend. If only you could have been so sharply critical of Obama or Hillary!

      What 'cha gonna do after a few months of President Trump's successes? We all know that's the fear that really drives you. ;-)

      1. Notas Badoff

        Re: HOLY CRAP!

        You think we don't remember certain people blaming Obama for the state of the economy before inauguration day?

        I remember years of the GOP deflecting everything negative as "That's old news." They stopped when everyone realized how often and how reflexively they said it. I fear the day will be soon that the GOP resurrects it in its new form "That's old lies."

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Megaphone

          Re: HOLY CRAP!

          "You think we don't remember certain people blaming Obama for the state of the economy before inauguration day?"

          Or former President Bush II, 8 years later...

          I believe Trump has the correct strategy.

          a) tax cuts [for *EVERYBODY*, particularly "the rich"]

          b) de-regulation

          c) significantly reduce the actual SIZE of gummint

          d) put people in charge who were chosen for their ability to do their jobs, not race/sex/lifestyle/whatever [including political payoffs]

          e) ENFORCE! THE! LAW! - consistently, I might add. no more 'pick and choose' like Obaka

          it's a recipe for putting things back on the right track. It's the same one _I_ would use. It's been tried before (1980's) and it worked well, but of course doesn't happen instantaneously. We'll hear all kinds of grief from "the lamestream media" until reality becomes SO obvious, that people will embrace the reality instead of the doom/gloom LIES from those who want it to NOT be so [if it bleeds, it leads!].

          1. JohnMurray

            Re: HOLY CRAP!

            Reduce the size of government further?

            Take a look at the "massive rise in government employees under Obama":

            http://www.businessinsider.com/government-employment-obama-vs-past-presidents-2014-6?IR=T

            Further cuts?

          2. Richard Plinston Silver badge

            Re: HOLY CRAP!

            > d) put people in charge who were chosen for their ability to do their jobs, not race/sex/lifestyle/whatever [including political payoffs]

            The cabinet was chosen _entirely_ based on political payoffs.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: HOLY CRAP!

              Yes, they are in the same party as Trump, thus they benefit. You got a problem with that? Obama did exactly the same.

      2. nijam

        Re: HOLY CRAP!

        > ...after a few months of President Trump's successes...

        We'll worry about that after it happens. If it does.

    3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: HOLY CRAP!

      Re The Wall and Hillary : goes to jail

      Patience grasshopper.. There is plenty of time to do at least one. Choose one, the easiest please...

      Jailing Hillary would be a lot easier than getting Mexico to build 'That Wall'. Unless he wants to invade Mexico first.

    4. Richard Plinston Silver badge

      Re: HOLY CRAP!

      > backtracks on other high-profile topics, such as getting Mexico to pay for a wall along the US border

      While Trump has asked the Congress to pay up 8billion to start the wall he has assured everyone that Mexicans will pay it back.

      He noticed that Mexicans working in the USA send 2billion a year back to their families in Mexico. He plans to take that. Over 4 years that will be 8billion, enough to pay back what he has asked Congress for.

      I can see how well that will work - for the first week.

  11. SeanC4S

    One way or another there is going to be a lot of fallout. The economic issues hardly even matter if the draft is reintroduced.

    A lot of the business owners I've met have nuts ideas about the economy, lower income groups, the national interest etc. They become utterly convinced they are always right and they have special insight into the workings of the world. So let's sit back and find out if that is true...

  12. John Sanders
    Holmes

    yawn...

    """The approach Trump proposes was developed in the 16th century and used through to the 18th century."""

    In these centuries it wasn't possible to move both money and production to countries with slave wages.

    There were no massive corporations and rich moguls (cof soros, cof!) engineering mass immigration of 3rd worlders depressing local wages.

    I could write more but it is boring.

    1. pstiles

      Re: yawn...

      Really? no massive corporations? Have a peek at the East India Company's resume.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "it wasn't possible to move both money and production to countries with slave wages"

      Err... You're right, but only because the actual slaves were not abroad, they were local. And they did not have wages, at all. Because they were slaves. So no need to go to another country, you see?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: yawn...

      "In these centuries it wasn't possible to move both money and production to countries with slave wages."

      They moved the slaves instead.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: yawn...

      "There were no massive corporations and rich moguls "

      They we're called landowners and nobility back then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: yawn...

        we're?

        Sorry, I'll go sit at the back.

  13. Pangasinan Philippines

    Is this a word?

    normalcy

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is this a word?

      Bigly

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...fears expressed were likely overblown and had stemmed from the secretive process used to draw up the text."

    secretive, as in, not tweeted about constantly and not shoved in your face in youtube interstitial ads. it was as secretive as any other multilateral trade agreement. ie not secret at all but at the same time not exactly aimed for the wider public readership.

  15. Potemkine Silver badge

    Let's have fun with the Unpresident

    and let's see all the disasters a wingnut can do when such an insane one get real responsibilities

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019