The "very serious policy wonk", Paul Ryan ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

once again, shows he's an inch deep.

During the Morning Joe Show, there was a segment with Ryan, where he was talking about how republicans can work with President Obama, going forward.

Ryan stated he agreed with everything President Obama said about trade (TPP) ... then, he went on to add: {something to the effect} "We need this trade deal because we can't have China writing the trade rules on their own."

Uhh, "very serious policy wonk", Paul Ryan ... China is not a party to TPP.

[BillZBubb]

1. The "liberal" media gushes over Ryan.

Anyone with knowledge who listens to him knows he's an airhead.

[onecaliberal]

2. Serious, policy and Paul Ryan are three things that never go together.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Somebody misspelled 'wank' N/T

[sharp_stick]

6. There ya go

I think I'll use that from now on in discussions with some Ryan fan boys I know.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. I'm as disturbed by Ryan as is anyone

But IIRC, it's true that one Republican/Third-Way excuse for this turd-packed antijob grenade is that we need to co-opt the TPP countries before China does.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Co-opt the TPP countries ...

by instituting universal wage floors, allowing/mandating collective bargaining, increasing workplace protections and increasing environmental protections (all of which are the US governments stated objectives)?

I say, co-opt away!

[djean111]

8. Those universal wage floors are going to be pretty low, methinks.

All that stuff you mentioned - lip service. We'll see, I am afraid.

I take it you are okay with the investor state being able to overturn or weaken or sue over any sovereign rules and regulations that impede their profits, right? Bank regulations - gone, not just gutted. Signatory countries handed formularies dictating what expensive drugs they must sell to their poorest citizens, drug patents strengthened and extended in order to stamp out affordable generics., This is why India won't participate.
No country of origin labels. No hire or buy American, everything to the lowest bidder world-wide. You really think wages will rise? No, they will not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Well ...

per the "lip service" of the US objectives, the universe wage floor will relate to the US wage standards. And, mathematically, that floor doesn't have to be even close to the US minimum wage in order to discourage off-shoring.

I take it you are okay with the investor state being able to overturn or weaken or sue over any sovereign rules and regulations that impede their profits, right?

No ... You take it wrong. But then, again, that PROPOSAL is "lip service" proposed by unknown parties that isn't a part of the TPP agreement that has been agreed to, yet.

Same goes for the other stuff you mention.

[Scuba]

5. He's lazy. That's why his budget plan is so full of holes. That's why he lies about climbing ...

... mountains and running marathons. That's why he only pretends to was dishes in a food pantry.

[Cracklin Charlie]

9. But you are supposed to be afraid of China.

So there's that.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. China is not party to TPP, but they are motive for it according to supporters of it.

This is the 'moderate' or Third Way reasoning, set the rules so China can't. If I'm not mistaken you are a supporter of TPP and thus, you agree with Paul Ryan. What's your complaint? That he agrees with you using talking points used by other 'moderate' Democrats?

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. You are mistaken ...

I have said, repeatedly, that I have not formed an opinion, pro or con, on something that isn't. Negotiating positions are not an agreement until they have been agreed upon. I have been party to too many negotiations where proposals never make it into the final agreement.

If you are asking whether I support trade agreements, in their generic? ... yes I do. If you are asking whether I favor trade agreements that would pressure China to play nicely? Again, yes I do ... assuming the agreement does not hurt the American consumer and American labor in the process.

But I do not know what this agreement will look like ... So, I am reserving judgment.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. It's not difficult to understand it's just difficult to buy as an honest statement rather than a bit

of rhetorical parsing. People claim many things that are not supported by their actions. I don't have to accept the pr that comes along with the pov.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Okay ...

point to a single instance that I have indicated support for TPP.

Note: pointing out that the leaked memos (of negotiating position of some/a few/a bunch (who knows) of the parties) are NOT the agreement, as no agreement exists, is not a demonstration of support for the TPP ... Nor is pointing out the basic economic benefits to the US and the American Worker, should the US accomplish said objectives.

I think my TPP-supporter/ing sin is my failure to condemn something that does not exist but MIGHT happen, solely because someone, not a party to the negotiations says IF some other negotiating position wins the day, it'll be really, really bad.