Without endorsing TPP, some things to consider about it.
1. Will refocus some Eastern hemisphere trade away from China and toward SE Asia.
We already have an abusive trade relationship that eviscerated US manufacturing, and blocking TPP won't change that. It's called trade with the "People's Republic" (LOL) of China. As a result of that one-sided relationship, China is now a hulking industrial and increasingly military monster that threatens to destabilize the entire region, and becomes bolder every day in bullying its neighbors.
It can do that because its population and natural resources are colossal. Since our trade policies are the author of this threat, do we not bear some responsibility to correct it? And since simply altering our relationship with China, even if that were practical, would not put the genie back in the bottle and remove the trillions of dollars that have already flowed to them, clearly it makes sense to instead build up those of its neighbors who are still developing.
I see no foreign policy downside to building up Vietnam and Malaysia as economic bulwarks against Chinese financial might. The likely alternative over time would be they would end up having a far more one-sided and exploitive relationship with China rather than the West, and that could evolve into literal military imperialism.
2. The lot of Chinese people has strongly improved since we started trading with them on a massive scale. Why wouldn't that also happen with Vietnamese and Malaysians?
Whatever the problems that globalization has introduced to China - the pollution, the almost universal corruption, and the displacement of people from their homes - most Chinese appear to agree their lot in life is better than it once was, and are highly optimistic about the future. Moreover, China's human development index has gone from 0.650 in 1998 (ranked 95th) to 0.719 in 2014 (ranked 91st). Four places in a decade-and-a-half is quite a rise for a nation of over a billion still recovering from the ruins of Maoist megadeath.
So is it not arguably the case that the Vietnamese and Malaysian people would benefit from trade to some extent, even without the rigorous labor and environmental protections that would be ideal (and that their governments would not likely agree to)? Would the world not be a slightly better place with a Vietnam and Malaysia rising a few places in the HDI, somewhat more immune to both the financial influence and military threat of China?
3. Why would a poor, developing country sign an agreement with us if it protected our jobs at their expense?
We can and should reasonably demand some level of increase in wages, labor rights, etc. for workers in these economies, but it can't be to the point that there's no reason for them to sign it because it would eliminate the incentive for Western capital to invest there. Being too demanding on this front would also eliminate the purpose identified above of draining some capital from China, which is now possible because China's wages are somewhat increasing.
And since the lot of the Chinese people has improved despite any stipulations whatsoever about wages in our trade deals with them, it's rational to at least say it's possible for these things to improve naturally from greater economic activity without having been required up front.
4. In a financially multipolar world, TPP would not fall as heavily on the shoulders of the US as China trade did - China would also pay, whether it wants to or not.
Western investments in Chinese manufacturing are gargantuan. With TPP, some of that money would be relocated to points South - to countries that are not a threat to us or their neighbors, and not a threat to the very concept of democracy (despite either not being one themselves, or being partially one - for now).
5. Negotiations involve bargaining positions one doesn't necessarily intend to see in the actual deal, so don't get hysterical over every leaked proposal.
This is why trade deal negotiations are secret, not because they're hiding from you - they're hiding from each other. Especially in a multilateral negotiating process, countries have one-on-one discussions with each other, form alliances to push for some elements and oppose others, bargain and cajole, play games, and do all the things that politicians must do to make anything happen in reality. Part of that reality is taking bargaining positions that don't necessarily reflect the reality of one's intentions. Even in everyday life, simple bargaining involves this principle, and these negotiations are as far from simple as one can get.
6. If we aren't willing to make such deals, China is.
Regardless of who makes the deal, China is going to relinquish some of its capital position. But if China makes the deal, the profits will go to its millionaire and billionaire elites rather than ours, and they're champing at the bit to do this kind of business.
Is it wise to further enrich those scumbags, who make our own scumbags look like Ralph Nader, and feed them entire countries that are geopolitically important to checking the ambitions of their own? Is that a proportionate price to keep some shoe sweatshops in the United States?
---
The American people have been screwed over repeatedly by trade deals, and we can and should demand to get a piece of the benefits, but there are plenty of reasons to support the underlying principle of seeking a Trans-Pacific Partnership. Our demands for it should be aware of, and tailored to those reasons.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Especially your 'answer' to number five, where you claimed the participating countries must keep the deal secret from each other!!
"How can they tell us what's in it when they MUST KEEP IT SECRET FROM EACH OTHER!!2!
