Is it wrong though? I've seen this argument over and over...since they pay little, you call it exploitation.

Yes, it's totally wrong. If a trade deal is made with a poor country that doesn't exploit its people, doesn't engage in human rights abuses, doesn't allow slavery and doesn't engage in violent union busting I think that's fine.

For you, things are so black and white. If they can't pay a good wage in a poor country, you consider it explotiation and want no trade with them.

You are now building an argumentative house of cards on a straw man.

If some free trade agreement has some rider you dislike

You're confused. I liked the anti-slavery rider. I am really happy that we minimize trade with countries that use slaves. I think it was you who wants to buy goods made by slaves, wasn't it? You were the one worried about whether those slaves had jobs.

And yet economist and geopolitical experts supported it.

Uh, depends on whom you asked. There are plenty of economists who supported it but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The worst aspect of it (the ISDS) wasn't even an economic matter.

It was complicated by the fact that it didn't actually really reduce trade barriers all that much and the reason for its existence was increasing intellectual property restrictions, creating the new "secret court system" (ISDS). Hence giveaway to big corporations.

And yet you believe "screw the TPP, even if the end result will be worse for those Asian countries and the US".

It won't though. We're much better off without it.

You get hyperfocused on one issue

Oh right, I didn't even get started on the ISDS... lemme tell you, that was a fucking travesty.