[semimojo]

I don’t care if trade deals don’t get done if they must be conducted in secret in order to get them done.

I’ve no love for past trade deals, which in my opinion, have not benefitted the USA. And, honestly, the revelations about this one AND the secrecy, make me want to kill this one now

Being against trade deals is fine, but then that should be the argument.

There isn't any way you could successfully conduct a high-stakes negotiation among 12 parties in public, so saying that's the only way that's acceptable is the same as saying you don't want any trade agrements.

[xzins]

I’m not talking about IBM negotiating with Microsoft.

I’m talking about MY government negotiating trade in secret. I see reasons to negotiate defense, weaponry, black operations, etc., in secret.

I see great danger is allowing secrecy beyond that.

[GodBlessUSA]

agreed

Mis-read your last post :)

[Principled]

There isn't any way you could successfully conduct a high-stakes negotiation among 12 parties in public, so saying that's the only way that's acceptable is the same as saying you don't want any trade agrements.

First, nobody is saying anyone wants to conduct negotiations in public. That's a strawman. What people are saying is that we do not want to have something undesirable happen due to secrecy. Indeed, some specific examples have been provided - things relating to amnesty/immigration and "living documents" that can change without approval for example.

Those two things at a minimum need to be cleared up. Separately, they need to clear up the secrecy thing. Why does something have to be classified? Why are there gag orders on the people who view the classified agreement?

This needs to be cleared up is all.