General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: There is no way to reconcile the TPP with helping working Americans [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,825 posts)... that people have a right to question anything, and to try to ascertain "what's IN the damned thing".
But there doesn't seem to be much questioning or determining anything here. It's been a non-stop screamfest, every time the TPP is even mentioned, consisting of "It's an abomination! It's a betrayal! It's selling the entire country to the corporations!" - without one iota of actual fact coming into play.
Have you seen anyone here say, "According to Clause 3 (b) (iv) on page 23, the following will happen ..."? How about, "The wording in subparagraph 14 of provision 62 will result in ..."?
No, you haven't - because the people claiming to have read the leaked drafts and understand their import and impact actually don't know anything of the kind. They simply substitute hyperbolic rhetoric for facts, while holding themselves out as experts in int'l law and treaty protocol.
If one has already taken the position that this agreement is "handing over the US gov't to corporations", regardless of what is in the final treaty, so be it. They have every right to take whatever position they choose.
But the self-proclaimed "expertise" displayed on DU of late has quashed many a potential discussion of actual facts, and actual consequences. That's been the case with "legal experts" on the TPP, the Assange case, the Snowden case, the Zimmerman trial - the list goes on.
It's difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the implications of the TPP - or anything else, for that matter - with people whose only "expert response" on any topic is "we're gettin' screwed again, man!" without ever being able to offer a crumb of an explanation as to how they came to that conclusion - other than the fact that they read it on DU, and that's what everyone else is saying.
You have offered your own explanation, in that you feel you've been screwed before and it's a matter of once burned/twice shy. At least that's something, and I can't argue with your reasoning.
But the DU "experts" - whose expertise apparently includes everything from int'l trade agreements, to Swedish law pertaining to the interviewing of witnesses on foreign soil, to trials where prosecutors are somehow allowed to conduct trials without regard to criminal law - are too busy declaring themselves as experts to actually engage in meaningful discussion.