re: #391 ObserverArt

Thanks for yet another explanation :)

The part in bold is not correct. Congress is not fast tracking anything. All they have done and can do is grant the president the ability to fast track the treaty.

Again, arguing about such minor points just doesn’t seem fruitful in context. Seen from such an angle, Charles’ opening posting is also not correct, because strictly speaking nobody has rejected the TPP yet. (“I’m not dead!”) It is, however, correct in its core. So is saying “the Congress fast-tracks”, even if it only gives the authority to the Pres (which it knows he will use). To me this objection is like objecting to someone saying “This and this one voted for the war” - even if they didn’t technically vote for the war, but rather for an authorization.

Everybody is getting bogged down in these details, missing the forest for the trees.

The trees are the particular procedures, particular bills etc., where I can certainly can get something wrong or use a less than precise language.

The forest is that it is first of all up to the Congress whether to give Obama the fast-tracking authority and whether to support the supplementary bills, thus directly influencing the whole process basically before it starts.

If any particular congresswoman or -man is very skeptical about the bill because of general principles, but still wants to give it a chance, their request for reading the treaty (which they can do) and have it analyzed by aides (which they can’t) is justified.

If they’re not allowed their request, they are justified in acting on their skepticism through “unhelpful” voting (such as not granting the fast-tracking authority or not voting for the supplementary bills), citing the access refusal as the final reason.

While it can be argued that they should wait until the treaty is ready, etc., they don’t really have to. They already have an opinion, and they have already expressed willingness to examine the proposal more closely, and if they’re not granted this opportunity and choose not to “start the ignition” in the first place, I think this is a justified position, as far as politics goes.

Now, the opposition to the treaty itself may not be justified, but that’s another issue that I’m not arguing about.

I’m not sure that those who have objected to my point have understood what I’m actually saying. So while they have tried to explain something to me, it wasn’t necessarily what I was arguing against.