General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Pres. Obama tells Dems, on TTP: "Get informed, not by reading the Huffington Post" [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)don't go well.
I don't trust the motivations, intentions, or actions of the heavily involved non - government players and that "heavily involved" is substantially understated
That I have little confidence of any serious intent to regulate multinationals from the American government actors and that our own bullshit labor and environmental regulations are being set as the unobtainable Gold standard the other participants will be edged to while further hampering our internal ability to improve upon these standards legally, politically, and economically. Giving room for nefarious parties to continue to reduce ours while continuing to bleed our workers and consumers out.
That I have heard the same arguments in favor every time a deal has gone through regardless of party and so the little boy who cried wolf factor has the meter pegged.
That I believe the entire method of passing these things to be a scam because agreements of this much impact with international bodies should go through the formal treaty process.
Just the chosen way to do business in this area shows disdain and willful intent of proponents to end around the constitution from both parties including the full leadership chain.
That the majority of "experts" have been consistently WRONG and not just on trade but broadly about economics and are always wrong in favor of capital at the expense of workers to I think one would not be unreasonable to wonder at, notice, and respond to a sticky pattern of outcomes.
AL the "mistakes" go ONE way. That is what the real world calls an agenda.
All of which means that no way this discussion starts out with me being neutral and sure as hell won't be granting such agreements a privileged position of assumed to be good until proven otherwise because from my perspective to do so is insane"?
The Joe Cool thing is a sales strategy.
The appearance of being above the fray is cultivated, passive language employed but the reality is the person making such a case is deftly arguing in favor via framing.
The house wins all ties, all you have to do is talk people into "wait and see" and the ball is advanced and there is a more than fair chance by employing this framing tactic, the agreement will actually be the "default" and the burden of proof moves to the opposition because again tie goes to the house, might as well ride that out rather than get into the weeds.