= new reply since forum marked as read
More trade is always good.
It cuts the bottom line and makes us all more competitive.
Ahem... the slave wagers is the USA will be competing with workers in foreign countries who make a fraction of what they do, and as a result will probably lose their jobs.
But that has never really happened before so perhaps I am wrong.
I've braced myself.
You will only see bits and pieces and you won't have the whole picture.
But don't let that stop you from going into full poutrage mode.
Carry on, my dear.
the obscure junior senator from nowhere? How would someone like that sport any stature? 
WARREN - GRAYSON 2016!!!
The second will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. One of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administration’s avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high — especially rules regarding labor rights, environmental standards and the behavior by state-owned enterprises — that China could never join without transforming its economic system. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.
The 2013 launch of a U.S.-European Union free trade negotiation — effectively a Trans-Atlantic Partnership, a bookend for the TPP — primarily reflects majority (58%) sentiment in the United States that increased trade with Europe would be a good thing for the United States. But it can also be seen as an attempt to establish U.S.-European, rather than Chinese, technical and regulatory standards as global business norms.
The Obama administration is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator, which is something Mitt Romney promised he would do on his first day in office. In Obama’s first term, the White House had multiple opportunities to do so and declined, even though the renminbi was weaker against the dollar than it is now.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/
Democrats are more supportive of trade than republicans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160748/americans-shift-positive-view-foreign-trade.aspx http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/
It is about a lot more than trade, too. I agree that the provision you are referring to, if it is in the final draft of the agreement, is a huge negative. If (a big IF, perhaps, but if) this provision is not in the final agreement, would you consider supporting the TPP?
If enforceable provisions for labor rights and tough environmental standards are in the final draft that is a huge positive. Of course, "enforceable" means that national sovereignty takes a hit. The US, for example, would not be able to squirm out of strengthening its labor laws with the excuse of "but we are a sovereign country and you can't tell us what to do."
I don't know which provisions are in the final draft and which will be left out. I will certainly oppose it if it keeps the corporate provision you are referencing and does not have strict and enforceable standards on labor rights and the environment. It will not be a perfect document. (The only way it would be is if they had said, "pampango, we want you to draft the TPP. Let us know when you are finished." 
) If you do know what the final agreement looks like, please share it with those of us on the outside.
Obama knows that the way trading rules are structured now there are no protections for labor rights and the environment. China and other poor countries have an inherent advantage if the playing field remains as it is now - dominated by the lowest wages, weak unions and low environmental standards rather than by high labor and environmental standards. China would love for it to stay this way, so it opposes TPP. It does not see its bread being buttered by a change to stronger unions and tougher environmental requirements.
There is no defense for this.
You might get the errant knuckle dragging generality, "It'll create jobs", and believe it I've heard this one already. Other than that, I'm excited to see what comes up.
-p
and I'll keep spreading the word.
Take Care.
-p
WAAAAHHH!!! 
Seriously, that's the newest meme I encountered on here. If Obama thinks about doing something and we criticize we "thoughtcrime" him. 
Some people just don't understand democracy. Or just worship Obama more.
The decline in manufacturing employment did not start, or even accelerate, in 1995.
That's seriously creepy. 
