re: #406 Nyet

Thanks for yet another explanation :)

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.

I gave it my best shot. All I can say is you are refusing to acknowledge you are wrong. You are falling for the politics of congress bitching, which is exactly why there is fast tracking in the first place.

They granted the process, they are now bitching they are not part of the process for political points. And you are biting on that bitching.

Your whole paragraph that I put in bold type is wrong. There is no arguing they should wait…they made that part of the deal from the get-go. They have to wait..period.

They can not have an opinion, because they have seen nothing to have an opinion on. They can’t examine anything because there is nothing to examine. There is no opportunity to grant and nothing to choose to start because by allowing the fast track method they have not given themselves that ability. They already granted that and approved it.

Just because you seem to want it so does not make it so and all you are doing is arguing against reality. Which makes no damn sense and is why everyone is so frustrated by your position. Which seem to be contrarian just to be contrarian, like you are bored or just wanting to start fights. Only you can answer why you are being stubborn.

Oh well. Can’t make you drink the water if you refuse. No further response from me.