Any "treaty" that is specifically not called a treaty to avoid the constitutional requirement of a 67 vote threshold should be the first red flag.

 

2nd the fact that it's a "living agreement" meaning that executive orders can make any level of change to the agreement at any point is another red flag.

 

"The text of TPP emphasizes that it is a “living agreement.” Translated out of bureaucratese code language, that means the text of TPP can be changed in major and minor ways by executive action after Congress OKs the document. The TPP could, for example, add additional countries such as Communist China, which for years has been cheating America coming and going." http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/fast-track-ho...ica-track/

 

Another problem is you're taking American business and then putting under UN Authority big problem with that

 

"Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/busine....html?_r=0

 

Then there's the arguments to be made about how it will effect everything from immigration (legal and illegal), trade jobs, manufacturing and so on. I really don't even see a positive in the TPP.

 

---